User talk:Ethanmurphy95

Welcome!

Hello, Ethanmurphy95, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Yuvaank (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, I'm Epsilon.Prota. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 00:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2026 (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).

Ethanmurphy95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I would like to appeal this block. To the best of my knowledge, I have not used this account abusively and am unaware of any actions that would justify an indefinite block. All of my edits have been made in good faith and with the intention of complying with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. When uncertain, I have consistently sought clarification through article talk pages before proceeding, which can be verified through my contribution history. If there are specific concerns regarding my editing activity, I would appreciate clarification so that I can better understand the issue and address it appropriately. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on a review of the technical and behavioural evidence, I do not find your explanations convincing. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2026 (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.

Looks like you and user:SERENEHORIZON01 have been coordinating edits in a way that violates Wikipedia's rules. For example, undeclared paid editing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising the concern. I am not entirely sure what is meant by “coordinating edits” in this context and would appreciate it if you could provide a specific example that supports this claim and allow me a chance to respond. Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your chance to respond is now. As I just told Serenehorizon, if I had to guess, I'd say you both work for the same PR firm. You have both exclusively edited about businesses and have similar edit summaries. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out @331dot

I am a working professional who enjoys contributing to Wikipedia as a hobby, and that is all I will disclose about my identity. I do not believe the allegations regarding coordination with SERENEHORIZON01 are accurate and therefore have little I can add on that matter.

I stand by every edit I have made. Throughout my time editing, I have made a conscious effort to ask questions when I am uncertain, discuss concerns on relevant talk pages, and verify information before adding it to an article. Where i was wrong, I have admitted so and improved. My goal has always been to improve articles through accurate sourcing, neutrality, and constructive collaborations.

If there are any specific questions you have about each of my edits, I am happy to discuss them. Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to give your specific identity, though saying you're a "working professional" is so vague as to be useless. So, you deny that you are a paid editor?

If you're using an AI, please don't. See WP:LLMTALK. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot

None of what I have said above is AI generated and, even if it were, it would still be true. I also cannot meaningfully respond to an accusation that I work at a PR firm without disclosing my identity, which I do not wish to do.

More importantly, I do not see how that is relevant given that I have never made edits that promote any specific company. If anything, my editing history shows that I have frequently toned down promotional or controversial content to strictly align articles with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot And Yes, I deny that I am a paid editor. As I have said before, I welcome scrutiny of any edit I have made so far and am happy to discuss the reasoning behind them. Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to disclose your identity to say "yes I do work at a PR firm" or "no, I don't"- nor do I wish for you to. I didn't ask for a name of a firm or your resume.

Okay. Why did you select Tokina as the first subject of your editing?

Would you agree to a topic ban from editing about active companies or living people? 331dot (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331 I do not work at a PR firm and have no ties to any allied professions related to it.

Tokina was my first hard edit recommendation through suggested edits. I chose it because it seemed approachable, but also because there were relatively few high-quality sources available, which made it an fun challenge. There was also a concern raised about my use of LLM-generated sources; while I did not use them to generate sources, I did use them to help verify information. I discussed this with the administrator who raised the issue, resolved the concern, and learned from the experience. I am still working on improving the sourcing for that article. As I became more comfortable with wikipedia’s policies and source editing, I started independently seeking out independent companies and business history articles due to my personal interest in the subject.

I appreciate your consideration. My interest in these topics is genuine, and I edit them because I enjoy researching and documenting them.

To address your concerns, I would be willing to accept a topic ban on living persons, as that is not an area I am particularly interested in. However, I genuinely enjoy editing business and company history articles and would like to continue doing so. As a good-faith compromise, would you consider a temporary or time-limited restriction rather than a permanent one? Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot My response above Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who is SERENEHORIZON01? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I honestly do not know how to answer that question. This comes as a surprise to me. All I can do is respectfully ask that my case be reconsidered. Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this will be compelling to the checkuser who responds to this case. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is permanent on Wikipedia; the lack of an end date only means that you must actively appeal a restriction for it to be removed. I wasn't asking to negotiate, simply offering it.

In any event, as it stands now, only a checkuser can authorize the removal of this block, and that can only happen if you provide a plausible reason private technical evidence might indicate a connection if there is none. I don't know what that evidence is, but I can say that a checkuser can sometimes determine if two people are in the same physical location, or even using the same device. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot @Asilvering

Thank you for reconsidering my case once again. The only possible explanation I can think of is that I live in a residential building that provides shared Wi-Fi access to residents. I have also used a VPN while editing on occasion, so I am unsure whether that may be relevant. My editing niche is also not that specific?

I mention this only because I am trying to understand how the conclusion was reached and to provide any potentially relevant context that may assist in reviewing my case. Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that it is generally not permitted to make edits via a VPN.

Only a checkuser can say if that is a plausible explanation; One will come in due course. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I was not aware of that policy. I use VPNs as a security measure and did not realize there were wiki-specific considerations regarding their use. For that, I am regretful and once again, I appreciate your help in this matter Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, there is no rule against using a VPN to edit. We block many VPNs, so it is not possible to edit from them, but that's not the same as it not being permitted. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering I do see that WP:PROXY says "Legitimate users may be affected, though they are not the intended targets and may use proxies until those are blocked." but we block them so often that it feels like a rule against it. I've said this for years and no one's corrected me until now. Is the rule "it's fine if you don't use it abusively and don't get caught(or have an exemption)". 331dot (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, basically: abuse is abuse, and you'll get blocked for abuse. Your IP might get blocked for abuse, too. And admins tend to have a very low bar for "how much abuse is too much abuse" for proxy IPs. I personally block nearly every one I spot, because I'm only noticing them in the first place if someone's being abusive on them. Major VPN ranges are blocked for basically the same reason T-Mobile in the USA is blocked - just too much junk coming out of them that can't be handled in any way other than the nuclear option.

But see also WP:PROXY#CHECKUSER, which, translated into basic English, means "if you skeeve out a checkuser too much with your proxy use, we'll just block you". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I also cannot meaningfully respond to an accusation that I work at a PR firm without disclosing my identity..."

In addition to CheckUser flagging Ethanmurphy95 as using the same connection or device as SERENEHORIZON01, both accounts edited the same article, VFS Global, to remove or add content in ways that made the company appear more favorable. They also pushed on its Talk Page for those edits.

The odds that two unrelated Wikipedia editors would use the same connection or device, independently converge on the same Wikipedia article, make edits in the same direction during the same time window, and both post on its Talk page to advocate for those edits are... astronomically low.

It should be noted that SERENEHORIZON01's edits to VFS Global pushed the same PR content proposed by StellarVoyager, another editor globally blocked after making similar PR edits. See details. — Flask⚗️^(talk) 18:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]