User talk:BoonDeal

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.

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 by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block was made in error. I voluntarily selected my username, not because of any business affiliation. Any affiliation suggested would be pure coincidence. BoonDeal (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Upon review, I must concur with the block, which was not in error. I find it very difficult to believe that the choice of username was a mere coincidence. I am in agreement with Ian.thomson's assessment below, and am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2018 (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.

BoonDeal is an internet marketing firm. Edits such as this are the sort of edits that would be made by undisclosed paid editors. All of your activity at Bankers Healthcare Group were similarly promotional -- e.g. citing this source that barely mentions a credit card for the advertising claim In 2011, the company introduced a credit card option intended to support the purchase of medical equipment, association/membership fees and continuing education for healthcare professionals. You also went as far as to censor negative talk page posts about the company -- something that someone writing the full story out of mere personal interest about the company would have addressed instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In doing a basic Google search, it's evident that the firm you are talking about is based in Algeria, has roots in real estate and is basically non-existent - having just a singular Twitter account with 4 tweets and 1 follower. It doesn’t even look open anymore and it doesn’t require much research beyond that to determine there is no correlation between them and me. I took two buzz words from years ago and combined them to create my username. Concluding we are the same entity is careless and rather ironic considering Wikipedia has an entire set of guidelines related to ambiguous naming conventions.

With regards to my edits, yes, my contributions will need some updates, as do all articles on a regular basis to ensure accuracy and compliance with best practice techniques as they evolve over the years. That will always be the case. Bankers Healthcare Group was the first page I created and it’s reasonable that you might find some issues with this page and others that represent some of the most challenging edits I have attempted. In that case, I welcome constructive feedback and am happy to make productive changes if and where necessary. With regard to the sources I used, I added local editorials that mention the company. They are within Wikipedia guidelines. As for the previous talk page notes, Wikipedia guidelines dictate that articles should keep a NPOV (WP:ADDBIAS and WP:V). Therefore, including a complaints/controversy section with sources such as complaintsboard.com and 800notes.com is an obvious violation of that guideline. Those are forums with biased authors, not neutral and reputable sources. I do not agree that any of these edits would be grounds for blocking an entire author account and eliminating months of productive contributions to numerous articles in one sprint.

To further clarify, per Wikipedia guidelines, wholesale revisions are not to be made nor are dozens of contributions across multiple articles supposed to be reverted without first discussing them on a talk page and getting consensus. It is evident that this action taken on your part could be considered a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. As an admin, this seems rather unacceptable. It is your responsibility to give authors a chance to discuss their edits and learn/grow as the platform matures. You are also supposed to do your due diligence in your research and protect the integrity of the articles. It seems as though you have introduced bias into the process, using speculation to justify dozens of revisions. I have already provided reasoning for every edit I have made. I am willing to further discuss each edit and any changes that might be required to enhance the encyclopedia. That is the way the platform is intended to function and is an acceptable course of action.

I am requesting that additional administrators review these claims and again request that my account be unblocked and my edits reinstated so that they can be addressed the way Wikipedia guidelines recommend that they be. Any other decision would be extremely discouraging, counterproductive to developing a community of authors and upholding the responsibilities of the administrative team. BoonDeal (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make a new unblock request to attempt to convince another administrator that you should be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am requesting that additional administrators review the claims against me and am again requesting that my account be unblocked and my edits reinstated based on the supportive evidence I provided above. To summarize, in doing a basic Google search, it's evident that the firm I am incorrectly being associated with is based in Algeria, has roots in real estate and is basically non-existent - having just a singular Twitter account with 4 tweets and 1 follower. It doesn’t require much research beyond that to determine there is no correlation between them and me. I took two buzz words from years ago and combined them to create my username. With regards to my edits, I agree they can afford to be updated, as is the case with ALL articles that should be updated on a regular basis to ensure accuracy and compliance with the latest insights and best practice techniques. However, I have made a conscientious effort over several years to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and have also provided very logical and reasonable explanations for the edits I have made that were called into question. I am willing to discuss any of my edits and improve upon them if and where necessary. That is the nature of how the platform functions and I agree with the editorial process. In that regard, I find it unfair and outside the parameters of Wikipedia guidelines that wholesale revisions were made to months worth of my contributions that should have been first discussed so as to reach consensus. The actions that were taken against me gave no consideration to the learning curve that exists among authors of varying strengths and left no room for me to participate and grow with the maturity of the platform. This type of action is a deterrent from fostering a healthy community of authors and contributions. Please see my comments ABOVE for more dialogue on this matter. BoonDeal (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

At a first glance that Twitter account, coupled with some of your edits, looked like a common form of undeclared paid (and promotional) editing to me, too. At a closer look, others of your edits don't agree with that image. Ian.thomson hasn't replied in a few days to JamesBWatson's comments below, with which I agree; thus I have unblocked your account. Welcome back. Huon (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few observations. You may like to comment on them, and if you do so it may help an administrator to assess your unblock request.
The only company that I can find with "Boondeal" in its name is indeed a real estate company, which does not relate to your editing, suggesting that what you say about your user name is likely to be correct, but of course that does not settle the matter of whether you are editing to promote.
Some of your editing certainly does look distinctly promotional, in exactly the kind of ways that are common when people who work in marketing edit, but on the other hand most of it does not look at all promotional. Such a mixture of promotional and non-promotional editing does sometimes occur from paid editors, but in your case I do not see a preponderance of promotional editing.
Removing another editor's talk page comment critical of an article you created, rather than answering it, was at the very least unwise, and was bound to look suspicious, even though I agree that the comment you removed was not very constructive.
I can understand your being annoyed at being blocked, but attacking the blocking administrator is not likely to help your case for being unblocked.
You said above that you were "requesting that additional administrators review these claims".

As far as your accusations of impropriety against Ian.thomson, the blocking administrator, are concerned, I can say categorically that there is no case to answer. Contrary to what you evidently think, there is no guideline which requires talk page discussion before reverting large amounts of editing which is seen as unconstructive. Indeed, there is even a tool specifically provided for the purpose of enabling editors with rollback rights to revert large numbers of edits at once. In fact, if you had 1% of the amount of experience that I have of administrative action to deal with vandals, spammers, and various other kinds of disruptive editors, you would realise that requiring discussion before ever making wholesale reverts of editing would be totally unworkable, and would enable such unconstructive editors to make disruptive edits with impunity.
As far as the promotional editing is concerned, I do not find the matter to be clearly proven. Certainly a significant proportion of your edits include addition of favourable content about the subjects of the articles you have written, such as reporting accolades and awards, high rankings, and so on, such as these two examples: [1], [2]. However, many of your other edits do nothing of the sort, and I see no sign of the persitent favourable editing of articles about a few specific businesses or people which is characteristic of paid editors: you have created one article and then edited it seven more times, and you have not edited any one other article more than four times, and very few even that often.

At first sight I thought, like Ian.thomson and 331dot, that this looked like an undisclosed paid account, but having looked further I find that there is not really enough evidence. On balance I think it more likely that what you say is true, and that we should unblock you, but there is sufficient room for doubt that rather than move towards unblocking immediately I am posting these observations here, to give you, the two administrators who have previously dealt with this (by blocking or by reviewing your earlier block request), or anyone else, to comment on them, in the hope that that may help to clarify the situation.
If you do make further comments in relation to this unblock request, either in response to what I have written or otherwise, I strongly recommend sticking to commenting on your editing, not on what others have done. Angry denunciations of others, such as the blocking administrator, tend to give a negative impression of the person making those denunciations, and reduce, rather than increase, the likelihood of a sympathetic treatment by others who read them. It may or may not be that the block was mistaken, but it was done in perfectly good faith, and, contrary to what you evidently think, fully in line with Wikipedia procedures. An administrator has to make a judgement, and in this case the judgement was a reasonable one, whether it turns out to have been right or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to an unblock if another administrator feels it is warranted. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the further review and your objective feedback. Your point about my tone is well noted and I'm sorry, I responded out of frustration and it’s not an excuse. I will strive to improve both my editing and talk discussion if given the chance, and I would very much appreciate being given that chance. Thank you for giving this another look and for taking the time to explain all of this. BoonDeal (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of BHG Financial for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BHG Financial, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BHG Financial until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]