User talk:Eric.608

Sorry. I need to get around to it, I"ve been swamped. Hopefully I"ll get it done by tonight. NativeForeigner Talk 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow. TO clarify, all the accounts are individual? NativeForeigner Talk 06:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In discussion with other clerks on irc, it would actually be better if all of the accounts individually requested unblocks. I will service all of the unblocks, but I'd prefer to do it that way, such that it's a simpler process for me to check contributions and monitor the accounts, as well as receive confirmation of understanding of policy of all of the accounts. If the accounts they make are promotional, I will have no issue with reblocking. NativeForeigner Talk 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner, Thank you for your response. I have asked all the account holders to request the unblock themselves.

But can we first start with one account holder? Just to be sure of the correct process to apply. Then the other holders will be able to follow/imitate your procedure, saving you from having to re-explain individually to each of them.

Indeed, Jean.dany8 asks me about the process to request an unblock, because he cannot edit anything on Wikipedia. Here is what he responded to you yesterday (on his talk page): []. Is this the right approach?

Could you please help him and respond to his questions? Or tell me, and I will transmit the message to him and to all the account holders once and for all, so they can individually request the unblock from you. Then I will stop my intervention here, and let them work with you on the next steps.

Regards,--Eric.608 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and do so. Users should use the unblock template. NativeForeigner Talk 17:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing it. It would be preferable if hte user dealt with it though. NativeForeigner Talk 07:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

OK well noted.

But it means for each request for an unblock, we will have the same scenario. I mean, if new administrators come without reading your investigation, account holders will have to explain again and again what we have already been discussing. To prevent that, I will ask each account holder to add two bits of information to their request:

- This code : - The link to the investigation and your name

Are you OK with this procedure?

I hope you understand that it’s a bit troublesome for us to be constantly accused of promotion/sockpupettry/meatpupettry. You must have noticed that we have always been careful to respect Wikipedia rules. We have always been transparent, ready to discuss our COI each time it has been requested, and attentive to your comments.

Thank you for your understanding.

Regards,--Eric.608 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In internal discussions it is the opinion of some that these users are wikilawyering such that they avoid breaking any policy per se, but still their intent is promotional and distortive in intent. Still being discussed as a result. NativeForeigner Talk 17:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted. So let me know how the discussion evolves.

As I told you, our objective is to provide additional brand information that is devoid of promotional content. That’s why we have always proposed our contributions on TalkPages first and removed any part that any contributor told us to. We are, of course, ready to re-check our previous contributions with you.

Thank you,--Eric.608 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. We have agreed on a course of action. All of the accounts will receive notices on their talk pages with stipulations. Namely they must agree to avoid editing actual articles, and they must clearly disclose their association on their user page. NativeForeigner Talk 19:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner,

All right, well noted for everything. So from now on, I will let each account holder manage his unblock individually. I assure you they will respect your stipulations, as they have always respected Wikipedia rules.

I would also like to let you know that I understand your recommendations. With your procedure, our contributions will be better verified and I’m sure they will really offer an added value to Wikipedia articles.

Thanks for having taken the time to study our case and reach a solution. Regards,--Eric.608 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)