User talk:Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44

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).

Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry if my last unblock request was unclear. I am not able to edit my user page, only this talk page, because I am blocked. I have been denied a username rename because I am blocked. I need to be unblocked so that I may: 1. edit my user page, and then 2. request a rename of my account. I understand fully that wikipedia does not delete accounts. However, it does allow and support account renames. Currently I am permanently and perpetually blocked from removing my real name from both my user page, and my username. These are the only two things I want to do, and therefore this request should meet the criteria for getting unblocked (which is based on me editing pages, not my user page nor my username). Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

I've gone ahead and blanked your user page - hope this is ok. If you let me know which user name you want, I'll change it for you. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2017 (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.

Your current userpage is a copy of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 and you should be able to edit that page. What username do you want? PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (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).

Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked. I agree not to edit any other articles besides my own user page and user talk page. At which point I will then request a rename of my account. I have requested my account be renamed, and that was declined because I am blocked. I requested that the admin blocking me delete my account, but there has been no response. I am in the unenviable position where my real name is my username, and I am unable to edit my own user page. Please also note that my "1 month" user block has been turned into a permanent block, hence the need for this unblock request. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 07:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is unable to delete accounts. Additionally, there is no reason to unblock you if the only edits your'e going to make are to your own personal pages and not to the encyclopedia. only (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2017 (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.

June 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Doc James. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you appear to be a paid editor you must disclose per WP:TOU/WP:PAID Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 14 June 2017 (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).

Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for the block is false, I am not posting spam but links to actual, useful articles. The blocker has obviously not even read the linked-to articles which are relevant and useful, a lot more useful than citing only primary research that few people can understand. The idea that one person can block me because of two edits, is ridiculous. Wikipedia gets worse and worse, more hermetic, and less open to actual improvement. Sad.

Decline reason:

Apparently you cannot see the difference between a reliable source and a commercial website trying to sell its products, even in retrospect. I see no indication that you would change your approach to adding links if you were unblocked. Thus I don't feel comfortable unblocking you. Huon (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (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.

We are not here to help people promote their clients. Apologies Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am a part of this We you speak of. Secondly, deal with the issue at hand, and stop making accusations. Read the article that is linked. If you can't do that, I can't help you. Sad. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 18:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: You left a message about a month long block, but blocked this user indefinitely. What's going on? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I blocked this account and than found further issues so changed the block to indefinite until the concerns are dealt with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my Wikipedia account, including my User:Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 page (which I am unable to edit because you blocked me permanently). I no longer want to be involved with this charade, and take seriously my inability to delete this account. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 11:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, what "issues", what "concerns"? And how exactly are they supposed to be "dealt with"? There is no process here, only accusations (unfounded) and a permanent ban? Looks like abuse of power. I'm sure I'm not the only one (or maybe I've been singled out for some unknown reason)? Sad. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 12:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're being singled out for proudly defending the addition of spam links. Sad, and causing concerns. Huon (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What spam links? Also, you should note that the information I provided/linked-to was used by another editor, who simply looked up different references (or used those in the linked-to article). So much for the spam link theory. The information made the article better, as witnessed by other editor behavior. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 01:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request I have deleted your user page. However, your account can't be deleted. See Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the deletion. All I need now is my username renamed, and then I am done. I requested a rename before but it was denied because my account is blocked. I would be satisfied with a random number for a username. I've made a request for a rename to 134235629345692348. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 00:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For potential future reviewers: while much of this user's contribution history looks like normal editing activity and positive contributions to Wikipedia, the evidence of paid editing is largely the following:

His web page, which says "Internet marketing... marketed worldwide to English-speaking markets. ... Focus on Southeast and South Asia... Industry focus in Education (Foreign Language learning, TEFL training), Hospitality, General Tourism, Medical Tourism, and Voluntourism." This closely matches his editing activity.
The creation of Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand
user dj65cf874dfh44&offset=20151108080630&target=Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 Deletion of Wikipedia content on social conflicts in Southeast Asia - I intend to revert these soon.
The addition of https://rehabthailand.com/community-reinforcement-approach-to-alcohol-dependency-treatment/ to Community Reinforcement Approach and Family Training on 14 June 2017. In a conversation on starting a resort business in Thailand on another site, Renamed User said: "To be honest, it is not actually difficult, though somewhat expensive. If you are talking resort, it is better to focus on a particular niche: detox, spa therapy, drug rehab, these kinds of things are money makers" -Renamed User, Renamed User (24 February 2017). "comment on I Want to Start a Business in Thailand and Move There". {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

I haven't reviewed his edits on education, since I didn't see that was part of his COI until later. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can cyberstalk me all you want, you psycho. My Internet footprint is genuinely informative and useful. Your reverts are ridiculous, and petty. Just rename my user account, and you can libel, or comment on, the account to your heart's content. Continuing to stalk and comment on the behavior of an actual human is not very wise. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really tired of this witchhunt, and ask to be unblocked so that I can change rename my user from my real name. I see what is going on here, and I think it is complete nonsense. You can try and use circumstantial evidence to claim I am a paid editor, but it is not true. My edits are based on my own interests, not hiding things. That is why I use my real name. I don't want to play your game anymore, and wish my account name changed. After that you can block me to kingdom come. Please take this request seriously. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 00:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see I am being libelled by Sondra.kinsey as a paid editor on page reverts this user is now doing. Think twice before making these kinds of statements. Obviously you can jump to conclusions all you want, but making these statements about a real person is a serious charge. --Renamed user dj65cf874dfh44 (talk) HH:MM DD-M-YY 00:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming request[edit]

Request posted on the Administrator noticeboard. Litlok (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]