User talk:Cada mori

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).

Cada mori (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree with Bilby that the 2016 link spamming is rather strong behavioural evidence of continued promotional editing. Huon (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

What is the relationship between you and User:Luminescens, who has been editing Johnny Lin from the same IP as you? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not have any doubt that you continued to engage in paid editing after your previous undertaking not to do so. If nothing else, adding dozens of links to a real estate loans company to reference trivial points such as building addresses [1] is clearly SEO editing for the business. The range, promotional nature, and previous histories of the articles you created leaves no real room for doubt. This creates problems with the Terms of Use, which require disclosure as you have previously been informed, and is not in keeping with your prior unblock conditions. - Bilby (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/Cada mori, 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.

SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kinyumba Mutakabbir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kinyumba Mutakabbir 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/Kinyumba Mutakabbir until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]