Manc1234

Archives

• Archived discussions

Unblock request 1

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).

Manc1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please explain nature of block and provide supporting evidence

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Alex Shih^Talk 00:42, 1 August 2017 (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.

• For the reviewing admin: The subject of an article created by this user contacted Oversight stating they had received an unsolicited email threatening retribution if they did not pay them for creation and maintenance of the article. There are three socks associated with this account, and the editing pattern matches that of Orangemoody. The functionaries are aware and we're proceeding accordingly. Katie^talk 23:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have 2 other accounts on Wikipedia that I use to post content that I don't want on this account. There are no rules that state I can't do that, but I am happy to close those accounts. I have neither contacted nor threatened the subjects of any of the articles I've created or edited. Manc1234 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

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).

Manc1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please provide evidence of unsolicited email or threatening behavior. I understand that you are concerned with sockpuppet accounts and I will only use one account for future edits

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:12, 1 August 2017 (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.

Discussion of block

@Yunshui, @Katie, @Alex Shih

Dear admins, please can we have a discussion of this block? I understand that as admins your word is final but I would like to be able to represent myself in a discussion. Using the unblock template feels like I'm talking to a wall.

You all clearly have more experience with the unblock process whereas this is my first time encountering it. Your guidance says that I'm meant to treat a blocking admin is working in good faith, but I feel that you're not treating my work in good faith. I have a long history of contributing quality, researched content to a wide variety of topics. I believe I have improved the quality of the encyclopedia. However because of one comment from an individual who I have no connection with, you've removed a lot hard and valuable work.

You are working from the unusual position of presumed guilt, is there any way I can encourage you to presume innocence? Manc1234 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Having seen the evidence presented on the functionaries mailing list, there is no doubt in my mind that you are lying. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yunshui, Thank you for your response. In which regard am I lying?

I've provided quality content over many years, I've used 2 other accounts which I know is frowned on but I did that in good faith and have never used one account to back up another, just to work in different areas. I've never directly contacted the topic of any article I've worked on and I've never threatened to use Wikipedia to extort money.

If I based my edits on threatening behavior, surely you'd have had complaints about one of the other 40 articles I'd created by now. Manc1234 (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that we now know which paid editing outfit you work for, a review of that "quality content" is probably called for as well. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui, I only write articles I can substantiate. Peter Oxford is the oldest surviving man with cystic fibrosis, Edward M. Sion is a world leader in astrophysics and white dwarf research, Harry Ashland Greene basically built modern Monterey. To remove those entries from Wikipedia because of reported paid editing is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Let's all acknowledge here, paid editing isn't the biggest issue with Wiki right now. Manc1234 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a large section of the community would argue that you and your ilk are the biggest problem with Wikipedia. I note the lack of denial... so you admit to persistently violating the site's Terms of Use in order to make money from editing? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui, it would have been easier if you just asked me if I was a paid editor at the start of this rather than talking about the functionaries and orangemoody. Yes, I have accepted payments for my recent edits, but again, if you can find any issue with my research then I'll accept the deletions.

Moving forward, if I put a "paid editor" (WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE) announcement on my userpage and close the two other accounts I have used, will you remove the block and reinstate the pages I've created? I understand that my work will from now on be reviewed with a fine-tooth comb. Manc1234 (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Quite simply, I don't trust you. The only reason you are offering to comply with Wikipedia's rules now is because you got caught out; frankly, I am disinclined to believe anything that you say. I'm done here. Other admins are welcome to review the block, but I would suggest contacting the functionaries list beforehand. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui, you know the IPs I work on, you know the "outfit" I work with, you know the quality of my work. Yes, I am responding because I've been called out, but I've given you the assurances you require and you're declining them. That doesn't seem like good faith. Manc1234 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request 3

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).

Manc1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please remove the block so that I can mark my account as being that of a "paid editor" (using the guidance found at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE) and put full disclosure on the edits I've made for which I've been compensated. I will close the sockpuppet accounts I created, reinstate the all content on this account (with paid disclosure notices where required) and thereby repair the damage I have done to the of the reputation of Wikipedia by accepting payment for my edits. I will not be creating any new content in the short term as frankly this has been a very disheartening process, but I believe I can add useful content to the encyclopedia, correcting typing and grammar mistakes and providing additional sources for existing articles as I believe strongly in neutral, well-researched content. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Manc1234 (talk) 3:38 am, Today (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

I am satisfied that the comments from the two functionaries who have examined your accounts, which include: The subject of an article created by this user contacted Oversight stating they had received an unsolicited email threatening retribution if they did not pay them for creation and maintenance of the article. There are three socks associated with this account, and the editing pattern matches that of Orangemoody. The functionaries are aware and we're proceeding accordingly, by KrakatoaKatie. Functionary Yunshui doesn’t trust you, and from your constant ducking and weaving, nor do I. The COIPAYDISCLOSE template is not a simple licence to to accept payment for work and/or solicit payment it; it certainly does not mean that such practices are condoned by the community. Such practices incur 100s of hours of unpaid work by volunteers to search, identify, and remove the spam that people of your ‘ilk’ produce while taking money on the back of honest contributors who provide their work without remuneration. I am withdrawing your talk page access in order to prevent further request for unblocking and I will be conferring with the COIN group towards the possibility deleting any articles for which you may have received payment and/or which were created by your socks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2017 (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.

• Please also see WP:CUBL regarding any future unblocks. I am also pinging Doc James in order for this case to be documented in the current research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have found being caught out undertaking paid editing is a disheartening process, I would call that a plus for the encyclopedia.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ashley Koff RD

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ashley Koff RD, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Billshark Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Billshark Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Brett Beveridge.jpg

The file File:Brett Beveridge.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned personal image, no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Shuja Rabbani.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shuja Rabbani.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)