![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmoates.
If your are blocked, I would not oppose an ublock provided that you apologize like you did on Wikidata. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 03:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
— BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 05:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the unblock request pending evaluation of ArbCom. DoctorTexan ( talk) 00:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Request given unblock by Global unblock and Wikidata. I have assured on numerous times that I will follow the rules. Given that I have now been globally unblocked and on Wikidata, I would like to contribute here as well. DoctorTexan ( talk) 06:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Setting up this account earlier this month to continue violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK is proof-positive you haven't the slightest intention of following the rules. You don't even attempt to address this in your unblock request. Yamla ( talk) 13:01, 13 May 2021 (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.
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yamla previously denied my request saying "Setting up this account earlier this month to continue violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK is proof-positive you haven't the slightest intention of following the rules." But did not consider that it had been nearly a year. I told the admins on Wikidata that I did not have access to login into the old accounts. This was no evasion... it was simply a way to start over... Since I can't login I don't know how to move forward. Please see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:DoctorTexan/Archive/2021 - Where I was unblocked. Note that I have been unblocked on Wikidata and globally unblocked. I have made nearly 130 edits on Wikidata, all of which were constructive. I ask the closing admin to consider this article by, Bovlb https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Bovlb/Don%27t_underestimate_ignorance. It explains exactly how I feel. I am trying to be productive here.
Decline reason:
You have a long list of accounts blocked for block evasion, including this one. As you have been blocked repeatedly for this, you cannot have a clean start with this account. And, this is not Wikidata, so what they say there does not apply to here. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 11:39, 14 May 2021 (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.
RickinBaltimore - So explain this to me how does one start being effective here? I am lost... I have no access to previous accounts and I waited over a year to try again. Also, the point was not to use Wikidata admins as support the point was I am making constructive edits. DoctorTexan ( talk) 11:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Am I to understand there is no way forward? Please see the above... I am not sure how to move forward at this point
Decline reason:
Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and follow the instructions. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:29, 14 May 2021 (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.
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Based on Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks here is what I can say. First, the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption... this account was set up simply because I do not have login info for my old accounts. Everything done with this account has been productive and not destructive. Second, that the block is no longer necessary because I understand that I can only run one account and that is this account. Third, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. I did not create this account for evasion... I just didn't know what to do without the login info of previous accounts. I would be asked to be unblocked under Wikipedia:Standard offer. It has been six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion and I have promised to avoid the behavior. DoctorTexan ( talk) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
There is consensus at AN for an unblock here. SQL Query me! 23:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Everything done with this account has been productive and not destructive". You are responsible for any edits from this account on the anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Accusing another editor of harassment, stalking and blackmail is definitely destructive and not productive by my book. It's good that you appear to have come to the realisation this was wrong, not so good that you appearing to be ignoring it in your unblock request. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Apologies Beeblebrox - I didn't mean to tag you.
|
If you are unblocked, these links will help you make productive contributions. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 03:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
If I wanted to create an article where I have a clear COI but I only created the draft and then asked editors to review and make changes would this help avoid the potential of bias? Obviously, I would disclose that I have a COI on the talk page.
CC: BillHPike Bovlb Wugapodes DoctorTexan ( talk) 17:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Wug· BillHPike - would you consider removing the speedy deletion tag for the two articles listed above so that I can have more than 24 hours to work on them. Both individuals meet the notability requirements they just need to be written better. I plan to do significant work on them but I don’t want them to get deleted before I have a chance especially since one of them were still in draft space where I was seeking comments from the community. I can’t remove it because I created the article and I would argue that both subjects are notable and meet the requirements it’s a matter of changing the language which I can do in time. See Dustin Stockton Draft: Michael Moates DoctorTexan ( talk) 15:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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 Dustin Stockton, 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 deleted 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. YODADICAE👽 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
For a successful reboot of your editing career. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 16:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) |
@ Praxidicae: I am sorry that I allowed my anxiety to get the best of me. I wanted to reply to you on here so that you know I was trying to respect your wishes for me not to be on your top page but also said that I could address you. Would you consent to giving me a couple of hours to get home and gather this continent specifically for research purposes and then work with you together to re-create the articles in a way that you deem productive? I think they have value. I think they can be fixed and I would love your help if it’s something you’re willing to consider. DoctorTexan ( talk) 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Advice: Don't include any external links in your text. People who are trying to advertise always do that because they are trying to get readers to click on that link. Deb ( talk) 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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 Draft:Michael Moates, 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 deleted 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. YODADICAE👽 15:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmoates.
If your are blocked, I would not oppose an ublock provided that you apologize like you did on Wikidata. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 03:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
— BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 05:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the unblock request pending evaluation of ArbCom. DoctorTexan ( talk) 00:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Request given unblock by Global unblock and Wikidata. I have assured on numerous times that I will follow the rules. Given that I have now been globally unblocked and on Wikidata, I would like to contribute here as well. DoctorTexan ( talk) 06:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Setting up this account earlier this month to continue violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK is proof-positive you haven't the slightest intention of following the rules. You don't even attempt to address this in your unblock request. Yamla ( talk) 13:01, 13 May 2021 (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.
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yamla previously denied my request saying "Setting up this account earlier this month to continue violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK is proof-positive you haven't the slightest intention of following the rules." But did not consider that it had been nearly a year. I told the admins on Wikidata that I did not have access to login into the old accounts. This was no evasion... it was simply a way to start over... Since I can't login I don't know how to move forward. Please see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:DoctorTexan/Archive/2021 - Where I was unblocked. Note that I have been unblocked on Wikidata and globally unblocked. I have made nearly 130 edits on Wikidata, all of which were constructive. I ask the closing admin to consider this article by, Bovlb https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Bovlb/Don%27t_underestimate_ignorance. It explains exactly how I feel. I am trying to be productive here.
Decline reason:
You have a long list of accounts blocked for block evasion, including this one. As you have been blocked repeatedly for this, you cannot have a clean start with this account. And, this is not Wikidata, so what they say there does not apply to here. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 11:39, 14 May 2021 (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.
RickinBaltimore - So explain this to me how does one start being effective here? I am lost... I have no access to previous accounts and I waited over a year to try again. Also, the point was not to use Wikidata admins as support the point was I am making constructive edits. DoctorTexan ( talk) 11:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Am I to understand there is no way forward? Please see the above... I am not sure how to move forward at this point
Decline reason:
Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and follow the instructions. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:29, 14 May 2021 (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.
Michael-Moates ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Based on Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks here is what I can say. First, the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption... this account was set up simply because I do not have login info for my old accounts. Everything done with this account has been productive and not destructive. Second, that the block is no longer necessary because I understand that I can only run one account and that is this account. Third, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. I did not create this account for evasion... I just didn't know what to do without the login info of previous accounts. I would be asked to be unblocked under Wikipedia:Standard offer. It has been six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion and I have promised to avoid the behavior. DoctorTexan ( talk) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
There is consensus at AN for an unblock here. SQL Query me! 23:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Everything done with this account has been productive and not destructive". You are responsible for any edits from this account on the anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Accusing another editor of harassment, stalking and blackmail is definitely destructive and not productive by my book. It's good that you appear to have come to the realisation this was wrong, not so good that you appearing to be ignoring it in your unblock request. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Apologies Beeblebrox - I didn't mean to tag you.
|
If you are unblocked, these links will help you make productive contributions. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 03:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
If I wanted to create an article where I have a clear COI but I only created the draft and then asked editors to review and make changes would this help avoid the potential of bias? Obviously, I would disclose that I have a COI on the talk page.
CC: BillHPike Bovlb Wugapodes DoctorTexan ( talk) 17:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Wug· BillHPike - would you consider removing the speedy deletion tag for the two articles listed above so that I can have more than 24 hours to work on them. Both individuals meet the notability requirements they just need to be written better. I plan to do significant work on them but I don’t want them to get deleted before I have a chance especially since one of them were still in draft space where I was seeking comments from the community. I can’t remove it because I created the article and I would argue that both subjects are notable and meet the requirements it’s a matter of changing the language which I can do in time. See Dustin Stockton Draft: Michael Moates DoctorTexan ( talk) 15:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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 Dustin Stockton, 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 deleted 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. YODADICAE👽 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
For a successful reboot of your editing career. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 16:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) |
@ Praxidicae: I am sorry that I allowed my anxiety to get the best of me. I wanted to reply to you on here so that you know I was trying to respect your wishes for me not to be on your top page but also said that I could address you. Would you consent to giving me a couple of hours to get home and gather this continent specifically for research purposes and then work with you together to re-create the articles in a way that you deem productive? I think they have value. I think they can be fixed and I would love your help if it’s something you’re willing to consider. DoctorTexan ( talk) 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Advice: Don't include any external links in your text. People who are trying to advertise always do that because they are trying to get readers to click on that link. Deb ( talk) 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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 Draft:Michael Moates, 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 deleted 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. YODADICAE👽 15:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)