User talk:Luis at Sistema FIRJAN

Please, use the space below if you wish to contact us.

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z15

This user is asking to be unblocked to request a change in username.

Luis at Sistema FIRJAN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Luis at FIRJAN System (talk · account availability check · rename user)

Request reason:

Adapting my Username to Wikipedia's policy. Sistema Firjan (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators should consider discussing any unblock with the blocking administrator (see the blocking policy).

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, please replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-un on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=Luis at FIRJAN System | 3=Adapting my Username to Wikipedia's policy. Sistema Firjan (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | 4=~~~~}}

[reply]

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-un reviewed | 1=Luis at FIRJAN System | reason=Adapting my Username to Wikipedia's policy. Sistema Firjan (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | accept=Allowing username change to requested username. Please select an option from [[Wikipedia:Changing username]] and file a request as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. ~~~~}}

[reply]

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, replacing {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock-un reviewed | 1=Luis at FIRJAN System | reason=Adapting my Username to Wikipedia's policy. Sistema Firjan (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

[reply]

It's OK, but do consider the following query:

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel.

Regarding your questions, I believe it is possible to answer all of them saying that I am aware of the Wikipedia's pillars. In fact, I have gone through this subject matter (NPV, notable themes, COI, etc.) in the process of editing the articles in Portuguese that are already published in the PT WP. Those that I am editing in English are only a translated version of them. The choice to use the name of the company I work for as my Username is intentional, a way of expressing my good will through transparency.

Best regards, Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daniel Case.

Any good news about the process of unblocking my new Username?

All the best, Sistema Firjan (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to consult with the blocking admin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't impressed. He suspects there are differences between the conflict of interest policies here and on ptwiki that you don't appreciate. Can you perhaps read the simpler version of the COI policy and tell me what effect it will have on your stated editorial intentions? Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel Case. I will go through this text you recommended and will get back to you tomorrow with my considerations. All the best, Sistema Firjan (talk).

Hello, Daniel Case.

I have carefully read the page you suggested and believe I can say that the present account respects WP´s rules.

Regarding the disclosure obligation, which applies to me as a paid contributor, the rule says:

"Misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use"
"You must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive"

As every user can read, there is a statement in my Userpage disclosuring who I am.

With regard to disruption...

"COI editors causing disruption may be blocked."

...it obviously do not apply to me, hence, should not have been blocked. My case is as follows:

"Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously."
"They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages(...)" - we do that - "(...)and to request the views of other editors" - we have welcomed all the suggestions from WP editors to improve our articles and we have counted on the help of OTAVIO1981 in order to adapt our articles to the strict Wikipedia's standards.

Reading the topic "Escape, disclosure or management", about the ways a person with a conflict of interest might approach it, puts my account into the 2nd case (wich I think is consistent with the democratic age in which we live):

"it can be disclosed to anyone who relies on P's judgment, so that they can decide whether to remove P, or seek a second opinion wherever P has exercised her judgment".

In fact, I have faced what you call controversial edit. Nevertheless, I have been acting as recommended by WP policies (ie, debating in a civilized manner on the talk page):

"If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page."

I can say the only rule I have broken here (for not being aware of it) was using the name of the organization as the account. But I hope that problem will soon be solved with my Username changing to "Luis at FIRJAN System", as recommended.

Finally, I hope that the above confirms that my "editing intentions" and WP behaviour are the same I have adopted in the PT WP: transparency, good will and reliable information on a variety of themes, with lots of references.

Best, Sistema Firjan (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sorry about not getting back to you over the weekend—it was, after all, the weekend.

Given my discussion with Alex about your edits at ptwiki I'm not comfortable resolving this without some input from other admins. So I will be putting it up at AN for discussion, referring people here. Hopefully that should get us some consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Daniel Case. I think it is positive to discuss it over with other admins. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that I am currently unable to take part in the discussions (except here) once my account is blocked. And if it sounds better to you, I can propose another Username, without the name of my company. I just want to keep editing. Best, --Sistema Firjan (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked people to take the discussion here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! --Sistema Firjan (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. The Banner talk 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. The Banner talk 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]