User talk:Thescholarlyinsight

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Thescholarlyinsight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25824 was submitted on Jul 06, 2019 12:28:14. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock review and discussion

Note to future reviewers: There are at least two declined unblock requests in the edit history. Sorry, I'm too tired from writing my review to fish them back out.

In response to the above UTRS ticket, I thought it best to post a further response here.

In going back through your talk page, I found messages like "You are promoting various non-notable entities and people, including yourself," and in response to your email, this recommendation. " I would suggest we secure a promise to not perform any COI editing as a condition of unblocking and ensure they understand what that means." Please tell us what WP:COI means in your own words and how that understanding will change your editing.
What connections have you with Banned in Boise and Ethan Levy. After Ethan Daniel Levy was deleted, you recreated it and moved it to Ethan Levy. Why?
Please explain your relationship to STW Talent Agency.
Please read WP:PROMO and relate it you your editing.
Please explain WP:notability and how it relates to your editing.
All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Please relate this to your editing.
You must address your understanding of Wikipedia's policy on material copyrighted elsewhere. How will this affect your use of such material?
You may only create new articles via WP:AfC. You may not move such pages into article space on your own.
You will not edit about any subject with which you have an off-wiki connection.

Please address these concerns in your next unblock request on this page Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for taking the time to read this request. As I have discovered, Wikipedia is extremely complex, and rightfully so. I understand that we all want Wikipedia to be as accurate and reliable as possible. Two accounts that I have created, Welcome2wikiworld and Thescholarlyinsight, were meant to bring accuracy and reliability to the Wikipedia database, and that seems to have been lost in translation. I really have learned a great deal from the admins, and wish to continue contributing to the world of Wikipedia, but with a better understanding of how to navigate the community. I hope you understand and will consider this request.

Decline reason:

You forgot to answer the questions above. Yamla (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2020 (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.

Please address the points above. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Apologies for not addressing the notes above. My response to those are the following:

I now have a better understanding regarding COI, and how one who is affiliated/connected to a subject/person in anyway, may not contribute to the creation/editing of said page.
Ethan Levy is an American Actor, known primarily for his work in Television/Film. I am said actor, and seemingly have made the error of creating/contributing to my own page. Banned in Boise was a Pilot Produced by Sony Playstation. I had altered Ethan Daniel Levy to Ethan Levy due to the fact that Daniel is no longer utilized within my Professional name.
Ethan Levy is represented by this company.
WP:PROMO while I can somewhat see this mistaken as promotional, I do have to respectfully disagree and state that I was providing unbiased, factual information about the subject.

WP:notability notability is a tough one, being that notability is fairly subjective. Ethan Levy has worked on notable projects in Television/Film.

The pool of sources from which I have pulled from are slowly growing, and I was working with what I had, and I viewed as reliable. Apologies if they did not meet standards.
I understand use of materials copyrighted elsewhere, such as images, must go through the proper channels. I understand how important this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescholarlyinsight (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 February 2020(UTC)

Decline reason:

Thank you for your response. Wikipedia is not intended to be a platform for publicity, and writing about oneself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. As you still intend to write articles about yourself, I am unable to accept your unblock request. — Newslinger talk 00:52, 23 February 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

With all due respect Newslinger, but I did not state anywhere in the above notes that I will contribute to my own page creation from this point forward. Although I strongly believe that the Ethan Levy deserves a page on Wikipedia, I will let that happen organically in the future by someone not affiliated with the subject. If any future contributions are made to Wikipedia, it would be for subject matters within the parameters of Wikipedia regulations. Please know that my notes above were clearing up where I was coming from when I made these choices, but now fully understand where you folks are coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescholarlyinsight (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you have recently abused multiple accounts (listed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thescholarlyinsight/Archive), I am unwilling to unblock you right now. Please wait at least six months without editing Wikipedia in any way (including sockpuppetry or block evasion), and then submit another unblock request. The reviewing administrator might consider your request under the standard offer. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 24 February 2020 (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 previous unblock request gave me the impression that you would edit articles related to your works. If you will avoid writing about yourself, your works, and anything else associated with you, in any Wikipedia article, please say so in your next unblock request. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming at this from a different angle, but just as a note we could put in a partial block as part of an unblock condition, adding the problematic pages. This would allow for edit requests about the page but would not otherwise hinder their editing ability. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Hi Primefac, I'm interested in this suggestion, but I don't see any indication that Thescholarlyinsight/Theyear2015/Welcome2wikiworld would be willing to contribute to topics unrelated to Ethan Levy or STW Talent Agency. Also, Thescholarlyinsight had already been indefinitely blocked by DMacks in April 2019, before engaging in block evasion with the Welcome2wikiworld account. I'd also like to hear Deepfriedokra's opinion, as they were involved in the UTRS appeal. — Newslinger talk 10:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a moot point, as I received an email indicating that they were retiring. Primefac (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in contributing to pages other than the ones listed above, but I rather learn more about Wikipedia, as I do feel like I may have jumped into things a bit too quickly. As I have stated before, Wikipedia is a bit more complex than I anticipated. My main concern now is clearing up some of these public Sockpuppetry notices, as well as any information that reveals identity. Would love your help, and at the very least, only visible for admins. Much appreciated. Thank you again for listening.Thescholarlyinsight (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I do not intend to touch my own page in the future, however, I hope that someone else, not affiliated with the artist will. Additionally, I do have a request to make, and I can utilize your expertise. It seems as though my personal identity, along with the Sockpuppetry article has made its way onto Google, and is searchable by the public. I understand that this needed to be addressed, however, I was wondering if there was anyway for this to be removed so it is no longer made public? It also seems as though my personal IP address is searchable as well. Please advise. Thank you kindly.(Thescholarlyinsight (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Link visible on Google: https://en.wikiredia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thescholarlyinsight/Archive(Thescholarlyinsight (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Thescholarlyinsight, Wikipedia tells search engines not to index certain pages, including all sockpuppet investigations (according to this configuration page). Your link is to a Wikipedia mirror (wikiredia.com). Wikipedia mirrors are independently operated and do not necessarily respect Wikipedia's requests to exclude pages from search engines. Please contact the owner of wikiredia.com if you would like to have that page hidden from search engines. If you have unintentionally revealed your personal IP address on Wikipedia, you may contact the oversight team to request that it be removed from public view. — Newslinger talk 10:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newslinger, thank you for clarifying that. I'm having trouble finding the owner for that site. Any further info/help would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, any possibility of clearing it up on Wikipedia, which in turn, may clear it up on the mirror site. By now, I'm sure you have caught on to the fact that I meant well, and was simply not well versed with this site when performing these edits. Any help would be greatly appreciated. At this point, I just wish to allow my page to organically come to fruition, but would appreciate it if we can clear some these things up on Wikipedia, or at least blank it for admin eyes only. Something of the sort. Thank you again.Thescholarlyinsight (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I have to contribute to the discussion, all I did was redirect their unblock request here, note previously removed unblock requests, and state standard conditions for unblock-- but I see no reason to unblock, especially as the user has block evaded and socked rather than dealing forthrightly with matters on this account. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can potentially edit, so I fail to see why editing outside one's COI should be so difficult. If they are not able to do so, then that's that I'm afraid. It looks like they have edited in a COI manner as recently as January, so I see no other reasonable interpretation than that they are not here to build the encyclopedia. I find their protestations quite cynical. It would not be within the realms of reason to consider unblocking before July, when the standard offer would be a hypothetical possibility. Here is a permalink to all the discussions, warnings, etc that have been removed from this page. Just for some context. Again, I see no reason that unblocking this user would be beneficial to Wikipedia.Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight Deepfriedokra. I apologize if my actions have come off in that particularly manner, but in all honest, I was unaware of all the rules and regulations that Wikipedia consisted of, and I was merely trying to contribute factual, notable information. However, it seems as though I should wait for the page Ethan Levy to organically be created. At this point in time, I really would appreciate it if everything received a courtesy blanket only for the parties involved, as I see no reason that my personal identity, as well as online reputation should be tainted in such a manner. Please have good faith and understand my point of view.Thescholarlyinsight (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any further courtesy-blanking. You received many warnings and chose to ignore them but instead to repeatedly post things that violated numerous policies--that record is what it is. Many editors spent time chasing it all down, not all of whom might be savvy enough to know how to search in hidden content, and have already burned us before on requests for reducing your sanctions or hiding the evidence. As has already been explained, it's not on google anyway. Just walk away. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]