User talk:MediaManager1

MediaManager1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MediaManager1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, guys! Can someone please tell me how to improve #Draft:Francis Baraan IV. Lots of sources that are verifiable, independent, and legit talk about him in detail. And save for a few sources, the other sources I used were accepted here on Wikipedia as reference for other Filipino public figures. And I use external links to show links where verifiable media people interview him on Facebook and YouTube for their radio show.

{{paid|user=MediaManager1|employer=InsertName|client=Sirom Group}}

MediaManager1 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MediaManager1! I noticed your contributions to Draft:Francis Baraan IV and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also find it useful to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaManager1, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by InsertName on behalf of Sirom Group for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Paid editing?

Hello MediaManager1. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:MediaManager1. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MediaManager1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently duplicate user accounts

Can you please comment on the user account EditorManagerPH - is this also you? Both accounts are single purpose accounts editing only a single draft article. When one account stoips editing, your account then starts. It would be helpful to have an explanation of what is going on here. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can explain that. I forgot my password for EditorManagerPH. So, I had to create a new one. Which is this now. Apparently, I thought I would be logged in after being away from my draft. I tried retrieving the account via the possible passwords I could have used, but they were wrong. So, I created MediaManagerPH. MediaManager1 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:MediaManager1, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MediaManager1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2020

Your username strongly suggests that you are some one or some group's "manager". If you receive any compensation at all from those that you are editing about(not just cash money), you need to declare that. You do not have to be paid for specific edits, or paid in cash money or anything tangible, to be a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Okay. I will add {{Paid}} where? I get paid to edit in kind and freebies.

MediaManager1 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

You may add it to your user page. You should also add it to the talk pages of any article(or draft) you are interested in contributing to. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could also add the name of the person or organisation paying you. You need to replace "InsertName" with the actual name. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the feedback. Will add name of organization paying me. But the client is a group, not an individual person. MediaManager1 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EditorManagerPH, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know where or how to reply to this, but I will reply here hoping that this is the correct forum.

Yes, you are correct. I was EditorManagerPH before I was MediaManagerPH, because when I signed up as EditorManagerPH, I didn't realize that I would be logged out. I forgot the password I used, because I thought I wouldn't get locked out, and figured I could change it in the future. But when I couldn't get back in because of multiple wrong passwords, I just created a new one. There was no bad intention or malicious reasons behind it. It was simply ignorance on my part. Now, I am logged in for 365 days on Wikipedia, and made sure I remember my password. Hope this clarifies it, and get the Wikipedians to be lenient as I have been very forthcoming about this issue. Thank you.😊

MediaManager1 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaManager1, You go to defend yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EditorManagerPH#Comments_by_other_users It is not for me to judge. However, there is a useful "I forgot my password" (etc) link for forgotten passwords. Fiddle Faddle 09:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment

I can see how this feels like bombardment. Perhaps more explanation is in order.

There are three things in play here. Adding the three together creates a distinct impression that you are something that you are not.

The first thing that makes all editors wary here is paid editing. We do allow this and you have gone through the Articles for Creation route correctly. We defend against undeclared paid editing vigorously. I'll get you out of that hole by positmg the correct element on your user page for you in a moment. ( Done Fiddle Faddle 11:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The second thing is the switching from one account to another. Especially with paid editing that makes editors suspicious. Had I not opened the sockpuppetry investigation then someone else would have. Note that it is a claim, not a fact, and is confirmed or not by very wise folk who specialise in that area.

Those together plus the third of your lobbying hard to get the draft accepted raise red flags for us. Since the onus is on you to prove you are on the side of the angels, not the demons, you start to receive warnings.

I understand that this makes you feel defensive, perhaps under attack. With this extra information I hope you can see why this happened to you and happens to others. We cannot and will not apologise for defending Wikipedia. I can apologise that the defence has made you feel bad. Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Faddle. Thank you for your the explanations. I truly appreciate you taking yhe time to explain thoroughly the reasons behind all the "bombardment." I do get them, and I am all for policy compliance. I and I would like nothing more than to abide by the rules. And believe me, I do respect the wisdom behind the rules, and respect the authority of Wikipedians, who doggedly protect Wikipedia and all the pedantic and pedagogical things it stands for—I am all for those. But I will aslo vigorously stand my ground against the socketpuppetry I am being accused of when the evidence points to an honest, innocent mistake — if one could even call it that. Most people are aware of the rudimentary guidelines regarding verifiability, independence, and reliability of sources—and notability of topic. But I would also argue that most people aren't familiar with the concept of socketpuppetry, or would even have any idea as to how to rig the acceptance of an article in a contributor's favor using socketpuppetry or team tagging. Well, certainly not I. So, while I do get why you will not apologize for defending Wikipedia against those who want to expedite Article creation at the expense of encyclopedic quality, I also will not apologize for not being able to retrieve my password for my now defunct and irretrievable EditorManagerPH account, and creating MediaManagerPH after realizing I got locked out. Had I known that I had to disclose my previous ownership of EditorManagerPH and as being the original creator of Draft:Francis Baraan IV, I would have. But like I said, I am still learning the ropes, and I would have been more receptive to the sockpuppetry investigation if it hadn't been for the accusatorty tone in the talk pages of others. I get that the accusatory tone is meant to intimidate and scare away those with malicious intentions. But I am not one of those. Like I said, I am cognizant of the fact that you need to do your job. So, I will try not to take things personally. So, I hope you don't feel attacked, too, by my strong objections to the accusations leveled against me.

Best, MediaManager1 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaManager1, Understood, and not attacked at all. Now, there is work to do. Your draft has been pushed back to you. Yi need to find better sources which are about the gentleman, I found I could not review it because I am wholly against the president, so was biased, Fiddle Faddle 13:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Francis Baraan IV (August 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Most of the references are sharing Baraan's tweets, with little if any WP:SECONDARY reporting. There is no substantial coverage about Baraan himself, other than the 'fun facts about' and '13 interesting facts about'. At least five of the sources are blogs, which Wikipedia doesn't consider to be reliable sources. The event that it is claimed he sponsored has a reference that doesn't mention him at all.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Francis Baraan IV and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Francis Baraan IV, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and adding more references soon, and more questions re: references

I shall be re-editing references for my topic in the coming days. Thank you to all the Wikipedians, who took the time to reply to me and help me navigate my way into Wikepedia Article Creation.

I have yet to learn how to properly tag others, but special shoutout to Fiddle.Faddle for being patient and generous with his explanations.

I would also wish to contribute to editing other Philippine articles, and to create new topics. Is that allowed?

Also, how many references does [Draft:Francis Baraan IV]] need in order to get accepted into Article Space? And which among my references should I junk altogether? Getrealpundit.com is a political blog by benign0, a pro-Duterte blogger with quite a following on social media.

Wikipedia states that if one article about the topic could not demonstrate notability, a compendium of articles about the topic might suffice to demonstrate notability. Contextually, shouldn't the quantity of articles wherein Mr Baraan is the headline prove public interest and notability. Mr. Baraan has drawn public attention due to his tweets, and has been widely quoted by both pro-administration and anti-administration journalists and bloggers.

Will long Facebook posts of pro-admin journalists also demonstrate notability, and when is a Facebook post by journalists acceptable reference. If acceptable, how does one properly cite them?

Thank you. MediaManager1 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi MediaManager1! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help with moving #Draft:Francis Baraan IV to article space, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Francis Baraan IV

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 Francis Baraan IV requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. GILO A&E⇑ 11:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Francis Baraan IV (August 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Francis Baraan IV instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Francis Baraan IV and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Francis Baraan IV, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Francis Baraan IV for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francis Baraan IV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Baraan IV until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing on Francis Baraan IV Comment

As you are a paid editor you should not be editing the page directly, but only make suggestions on the talk page for others to consider, you have bypassed the WP:AFC process which was not advisable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Please use my initial article draft as the template. Thank you for letting me know. Appreciate it. MediaManager1 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Francisco Baraan III

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 Francisco Baraan III requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article and draft conflict

Comments: Greetings, I tend to give expanded latitude for new editors as do other editors. This is evidenced, not only by my comments but that I did not choose to bring this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please understand that our policy of assuming good faith does not mean that editors don't get concerned if something appears to fail the duck test. "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that" does go a long way. However, the bottom line is that you have created an article against policy while there was an on-going draft review. Other editors feel the sources do not swing the pendulum towards notability. You are free to inquire from other editors such as through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard when sources are questioned. That is usually where a discussion on the relevant talk page ensues. It is an option that the draft can remain intact. As mentioned on your talk page a deleted page can be requested to be userfied.

Other important issues would be the use of YouTube as a source and in the "External links" like the "EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with Francis Baraan IV". I see "BRUTALLY FRANK: An open letter from someone with bipolar disorder" was removed.

You made comments concerning "content created and the notability of the topic" and these are two separate issues. Many bloggers want a Wikipedia article. Maybe it is a fad, I don't know, but anytime an article involves a living person the criteria is more stringent. Being "famous" is not necessarily an indication of notability.

Regarding your concerns about declaring the paid editing (or conflict of interest), and that it might be used against you, there are many that can feel, or sniff, or observe evidence when a non-declaration happens. In these cases sanctions can be swift, so it was the right thing to do.

Please note: The above comments are just my opinion and subject to rebuttal. I do hope you will stick around to help improve Wikipedia though. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your feedback. I have added more sources and tried to improve the article since the day you left a comment. Also, Mr Baraan is not a just a blogger. Heis also a columnist for The Philippine Business and News. That makes him a journalist.

MediaManager1 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when an artcle is being discussed, creating editors have the best success when defending by firing one, single, well argued shot. At present your arguments fail. I am also starting to get the feeling from the media you have uploaded to Commons, that you are the gentleman about whom you write. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Francis Baraan IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filipino. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing Francis Baraan IV

Per the article talk page you are a paid editor and should NOT be editing the article directly. Theroadislong (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Couldn't I edit typos, at least? And whom should I ask if I want substantial edits to be made? Could I edit other articles unrelated to Francis Baraan and Sirom Beach House, though? And can I start creating other articles in order to increase my edits and contributions here? Thank you. MediaManager1 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can request any changes on the article's talk page like all paid editors have to do. You are welcome to edit other articles unrelated to Baraan. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my edits keep getting reverted to the edits of Curb Safe Charmer? I would like my own words used, especially in the first paragraph. Baraan is not a guest house manager. As per sources, Sirom Beach House is a beachfront BOUTIQUE resort. It is not a bed and breakfast nor is it a holiday house for guests or AirBnB. Calling Francis Baraan IV a "guest house manager" is inaccurate and downright misleading. The first paragraph is supposed to signify notability. Starting with "Francis Baraan IV is a Filipino guest house manager" does not exactly read as significant, notable, or interesting. Squeeze.ph calls Baraan a hotelier, and it should reflect that. "Guest house manager" is not something Baraan has ever used to describe himself, and has never been published in any reliable sources.

This is edit wars you are doing. And this is abuse power. MediaManager1 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I would like my own words used", Wikipedia has no interest whatsoever in what the subject of an article wants, it only reports on what independent sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Francis Baraan IV shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Baraan IV while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Please do not edit while logged out, especially if you have placed an opinion on a deletion discussion while logged out Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaManager1, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Fiddle Faddle 12:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:51C4:A213:DDE6:49FA (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaManager1. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked by Roy Smith

A certain Roy Smith blocked me and he says I am a sockpuppet. How am I sockpuppet? I haven't edited (except for adding a Rappler article as a reference; minor edit) and joined the discussion page on the deletion concensus for my article.

I will be disputing this. Administrators who summarily block good faith editors could be desysopped, I was told. Roy Smith did not even let me defend my case. MediaManager1 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can defend yourself now; you may follow the instructions in the block notice. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]