TheycallmeDoug
Welcome!
|
TheycallmeDoug, you are invited to the Teahouse!
editHi TheycallmeDoug! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC) |
Hi
editHi Doug Isaac The Ultimate (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
editThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Requesting second opinions". Thank you.
Regarding the article you recreated, which I'm still not sure about, I've posted a request at the administrators' noticeboard for uninvolved editors to have a look. This notice is required by process. Please comment at the noticeboard if you like. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ivanvector I have responded on the page. Although I may get water-boarded I thank you for giving me this forum to explain myself. (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC))
March 2017
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheycallmeDoug (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do apologize for not being coherent to Wikipedia's guidelines from the beginning. My edits under Melchor44 were one sided and only cohesive to one particular subject matter. I do promise to take the vow and not edit/contribute to anymore movie, film studio or entertainment related articles. I hope you take my plea into consideration and I may continue to contribute diversely to the Wikipedia community TheycallmeDoug (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have to agree with the below: This unblock request does not address the issues this account was blocked for, including the attempt to evade scrutiny. Huon (talk) 23:35, 31 March 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.
Reviewing admin please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting second opinions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'll offer a quick summary of why I blocked:
- The User:Melchor44 account edited only articles about Ave Fenix Pictures, and people, films and events related to it - an area in which a (probably paid) sock farm was operating. Several of those articles were deleted.
- The User:Melchor44 account was abandoned just before User:TheycallmeDoug was created, the day after one of those articles (about a film) had been salted, and we had a sudden change to editing articles not related to Ave Fenix Pictures.
- Then a couple of weeks later, User:TheycallmeDoug asked an admin to restore the deleted article, Arise from Darkness, and when that was declined created a new version of it at User:TheycallmeDoug/sandbox - without disclosing any previous editing in this area. The new sandbox article contained a howling spelling error (the name of the subject of the article!) that was also in the last deleted version of the article, and I'd say that's evidence that TheycallmeDoug had access to the text of the deleted article. They claimed it was made by reference to the es.wiki version (es:Arise from Darkness), but that version did not contain the error (and was very similar in format to the deleted en.wiki version, despite being created after the latter was deleted).
- None of these issues has been adequately addressed, and instead we see waffly non-answers like "not being coherent to Wikipedia's guidelines" and "one sided and only cohesive to one particular subject matter".
My conclusion is that there is an organized attempt to promote this company and that this account is caught up in it in some way. It's possible that it was originally innocent, but I think we have seen a clear attempt at covering up those first edits to related articles and continued evasion since then. TheycallmeDoug says he has had contact with the company (to "ask permission" to recreate the film article), but it seems very likely that is not the full extent of the communication between them (and one specific question I asked abut the source of the text for the article was not answered). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:TheycallmeDoug/sandbox
editUser:TheycallmeDoug/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheycallmeDoug/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TheycallmeDoug/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)