User talk: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. If you are unwilling do discuss further, please provide more information about functionaries Manc1234 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)