User talk:Ali36800p

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ali36800p!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, (Hohum ^@) 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make any further RFPP requests regarding articles that are protected under sanctions[edit]

Please do not waste any further time posting on that board until you understand our protection and arbitration policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok i get it Ali36800p (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war[edit]

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine, i'll just give you more RS's Ali36800p (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read wp:bludgeon and wp:or, a source must EXPLICITLY say what you are using it to support. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i know, just give me one second... Ali36800p (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you know why...this is now a warning, stop wasting our time with sources you know fail wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I told you i'll get you more RS's, do you not want more?? Ali36800p (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine, bring as many as you want, but if any of them do not explicitly support your suggested text I will report you for wp:tenditious editing as in wasting our time forcing us to wade through a wall of sources that fail V, I have told you what you need. I am not wasting any more time on this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ali36800p!

I wanted to discuss what's happening on the Iraq war page, and Wikipedia in general. Here at Wikipedia, we operate on consensus, which means that what matters is the arguments editors make, especially as it relates to policy. This is usually accomplished through the WP:BRD cycle.

When Cinderella made a WP:BOLD change to the article, that was correct. When you reverted the first time, that was also correct. However, you did not discuss further on the talk page why you felt their edit was incorrect. As a result, I look, saw that she made an argument based in policy that seemed correct, and I did not see a policy based argument from you, so I reverted as well.

This is where things started to go wrong. Instead of discussing, or even leaving in the edit summary, you reverted again. Because the arguments had not changed, I reverted again. This is where it really started to look like an edit war, as described above. I reverted again, and this time when you reverted, you did leave an edit summary, saying, i dont need any other objections, this was what was on the original page, we don't need to change it, it's based on facts not personal wishes.

Here are two issues with that statement. First, if nobody else objects, it looks like a one-against-many situation. The second one is that it's an appeal to truth, not policy or verifiability. If you want to discuss why you think the infobox should have the bullet points instead of a reference to elsewhere in the article, we can discuss that on Talk:Iraq war. But it's important that you discuss; if I reverted you once more, you could not then revert without violating the three revert rule. If anyone else reverts, you're in the same position.

You seem very passionate about this topic, so Wikipedia could use your participation. I do recommend making some adjustments to how you participate, however, as the current behavior is coming close to being blockable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And read H:ES, saying A typo is adding or removing content breaches it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also aware you seem to have been the one who added the sources [[1]] you are now arguing should be removed [[2]]? Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1978 Iranian politics, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Cinderella157 (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which page did i edit on? Ali36800p (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This alert applies generally to edits relating to Iran and its politics - broadly construed. A review of your contributions would indicate that there are several such pages where the talk page banners clearly indicate that the article falls under the scope of the designation. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you Ali36800p (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War (2)[edit]

My mistake. When an edit summary says 'fixed typo' but a reference is removed, it set off my alarms. Bkatcher (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured out what was going on there; the citations were in good academic form, but not in one that Wikipedia could parse easily. E.g., they were of the form {{cite Journal|Doe, John. "Why is my link broken?"...}} rather than {{cite Journal|last1=Doe |first1=John |title=Why is my link broken?...}}. It makes my academic heart happy to see Chicago-style citations out in the world, but the Wikipedia software apparently gets grouchy if it's not in its preferred form! Ali36800p, I think your academic training made you do more work than you have to! :p Wikipedia's citation tool usually just lets you plop the URL into a box and generates it automatically. Or, if you're like me, and want to do it manually, WP:Citation style 1 has a list of the templates we'd use, so you can input the parameters yourself. Either way, thanks for adding the sources, and to both you and Bkatcher for your work to improve the encyclopedia! EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no problem at all! so what should i do now? Ali36800p (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got those particular citations squared away, so I think we're good on that! Thanks, by the way, for providing them; because you had them arranged so neatly, including URLs, it made it much easier to get Wikipedia to accept them!EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

once again my pleasure Ali36800p (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (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).

Ali36800p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Someone blocked me without a valid reason, if it was because of making disruptive dits i already stopped that a long time ago, what more do i need to do?? Ali36800p (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block reason is valid. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2023 (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.

then what was the real reason?

allow me, the fact you have said "then what was the real reason?" can be seen as asserting that there is some hidden agenda here to silence you. This is part of your problem you have a battleground mentality that refuses to work with others and insists they are right, irrespective of policy. The fact you only stopped one problematic mode of action after you were reported is also part of the issue. You need to read and learn our policies (and obey them) before you are reported, not after. You were offered (in effect) mentorship by another user, and you exhausted their patience.

If you want an unblock you must show you understand what you did wrong, and say you will not do it again, not just imply some kind of persecution, that will just lead to you losing talk page access as well. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2023 (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).

Ali36800p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ok, i just finished reading the guidelines and policies, and i understand what i have done wrong, and i won't do it again, i am completely aware of the fact that if i'm disruptive again i will be permanently blocked, may you please unblock me now? Ali36800p (talk)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2023 (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.

To be clear, it is not enough to say "I understand I did wrong" (see WP:NOTDUMB) you have to show (by saying what you did wrong and promising not to do it again) that you understand why you were blocked. Such as "I agree to not sock". Note as well you have to say it not just say "what he said", note as well you may not have been blocked for this reason. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2023 (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).

Ali36800p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What more do i need to do, ok, i understand that i have been making disruptive edits and that i have been misrepresenting sources as well, which is why i have been blocked, i will not continue to do this again and i am completely aware of the fact that if i do it again i will be permanently blocked, from now on i will represent sources correctly and i will only make edits if necessary. now i will ask again kindly, may you please unblock me? Ali36800p (talk)

Decline reason:

Declined per continued block evasion. Izno (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2023 (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.

I would advise you guys to let me know if you are going to unblock me or not anytime soon so i can know fast if i can keep this account or if i need to create a new one.

That would be WP:BANEVASION and WP:BADSOCK. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start reading our policies wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, that's the whole point of me asking to be unblocked Ali36800p (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So would you care to strike your threat to sock and demonstrate the claim you have read all the polcies linked to?. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain what you want me to do in simple terms?

all i'm asking is for you guys to come to a conclusion of whether you want to unblock me or keep me blocked, that way i can know if i need to create a new account or if i can preserve this one, i'm not threatening or pressuring anyone with anything.

Cinderella157 above told you that creating a new account would be evading your ban and would get you, and the new account, blocked as a sockpuppet. You should consider what story you want to be telling here. If you insist that you've read and understood all the policies linked, then your above message can only be read as threatening to sock. If you read but did not understand the policies, then you need to ask questions about what you did not understand. If you did not read the policies, that would be the best place to start. If you keep insisting that you understand why you were blocked, read all the policies, etc., then it's likely you'll end up losing the ability to edit even this page. There is a route to get unblocked; it starts with reading all the links people have linked to you starting with "WP:".EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by threatening to sock? what are the steps i have to take in order to be unblocked, i have already read all the policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali36800p (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. And to get unblocked what I would like to see is to you explain what mistakes you made, explain what caused you to make them, and then explain why they won't happen again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mistakes i made were making disruptive edits and misrepresenting sources, as well as failing to understand many more things. The reasons that these things occured is because i was unaware of wikipedias policies and guidelines and i continued to cause corruption. These things will not happen again because now i have fully read and understood all of wikipedias policies and guidelines and i now have a much much better understanding of how things work around here, and i am completely aware of the fact that if i do these things again, i will be permanently blocked. what more do i need to do now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali36800p (talk • contribs)

Part of the issue is that, above, you claimed to have read all the policies, but then didn't understand what was meant by threatening to sock, when socking was described in a previously linked page. This gives the impression that either 1) you cannot understand, in which case WP:CIR would suggest you stay blocked, or 2) you did not, in fact, read all the policies, in which case why would we assume you have here?

I suggest you start by explaining which edits were disruptive and why they were disruptive. You could also then go on to describe what an appropriate response to the same situations would be. You can't just say that you've read and understand all the policies, you have to show us. Does that make more sense? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made numerous didruptive edits, do you want me to name every single one of them? They were disruptive because i was making them over and over again. But then again, what are some alternative ways that i can show you that i now understand? Give me some examples Ali36800p (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this simple to start with. I made this post (above).

What did you do to cause me to make this post?
What are the links provided and what should they tell you?
What was your next response after my post?
What were you advised to do after that?
What did you do next that caused EducatedRedneck to write this post?

If you can answer all of these questions, then address these questions:

EducatedRedneck made this post. Referring to there first paragraph, what is the meaning of what they have said?
Now, summarise this: tell us what you did wrong and why we should believe you have a competent understanding of what socking is. If you cannot convince us in this respect, then you are just wasting everybody's time. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to let me know if you guys were going to unblock me or not so that i can know if i can keep this account or if i need to create a new one,which caused you to make that post.

The links provided in that post were Evasion and enforcement and Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts, which tell me that evasion and enforcement are two important concepts in law and policy that are closely related. While evasion involves avoiding legal obligations, enforcement is necessary to ensure that those obligations are met and that the law is upheld. Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts refers to the misuse of multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus.

then i responded with the same thing about how i was asking you guys to come to a conclusion.

then my response after that post was that i have read all of the policies and guidelines and that those were the reasons why i am asking to be unblocked.

then you guys told me that if insisted that i've read and understood all the policies linked, then my above message can only be read as threatening to sock.

now that ive answered those questions, i'll answer the next ones:

the post is suggesting that the i did not understand the concept of sockpuppetry, which is the use of multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. I claimed to have read all the policies but did not understand the concept of threatening to sock. The response suggests that the i either did not understand the policies or did not read them thoroughly. The response then suggests that the i should explain which edits were disruptive and why they were disruptive, and provide an appropriate response to the same situations. I was also advised to show that i understand the policies by following them appropriately. The post is emphasizing the importance of understanding and following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly with regard to the use of multiple accounts.

my summary now is: i did not understand the concept of sockpuppetry, which is the use of multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. I claimed to have read all the policies but did not understand the concept of threatening to sock. Threatening to sock refers to the act of using multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus, now that i fully understand what i have did wrong about making countless disruptive edits across numerous pages, and misrepresenting sources to make citations, as well as failing to understand what threayening to sock is after claiming that i have read all of the policies and guidelines, i will now wait for you guys to make a choice.

This is telling me that you now have an understanding of why threatening to open another account was wrong but that was just a start. Now you need to consider the behaviour that led to your ban in a similar way. This report at ANI identifies at least three separate behavior issues. Before the ANI was opened, Slatersteven cautioned you on your talk page here. This relates to the first matter of behaviour raised at ANI. EducatedRedneck and I have then raised a second issue at ANI and in the same section on your talk page. I also posted #Introduction to contentious topics. You also need to look at the discussion at Talk:Iraq War#Result. A final issue is whether this edit was actually made by you. If it was actually you, owning up to the IP being your sock puppet and acknowledging why this was wrong can only make things better at this time. You should know that this can be checked. The only reason it hasn't is because there was already sufficient reason for your ban.

There have been many links provided to WP:P&G (and like) in the course of discussions with you. In no particular order see: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:OR, WP:BRD, WP:CON, WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, WP:CIR, MOS:MIL, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, WP:CONLEVEL, WP:3RR, WP:VER, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Is the Iraq War at all related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed? There are at least two sections of the article specific to Iran. Consequently, I believe that is sufficient (broadly construed) for the article to fall within the banner of WP:ARBIRP. The post I made at #Introduction to contentious topics the would apply to this article. Some of the links I have listed are to a specific part of a page but the full page will be applicable and should be understood by you.

I said in my previous post that it was just a start. You now need to apply a similar process to your behaviour overall that led to your ban.

Identify the types of behaviours you have displayed that have been disruptive.
Provide links to particular edits you have made that evidence particular disruptive behaviours.
Identify particular WP:P&G applicable to a particular behaviour exhibited.
Explain how and why a particular WP:P&G applies in each case to evidence that you now have an understanding of that P&G and how it applies to the particular behaviours exhibited and the examples (particular posts) offered to evidence those behaviours.
Compare and contrast the your behaviour with that of the other editors involved. I'm not say that everyone else did exactly the right thing here but certainly, overall, we have. Focus on the things we did well. Focus on the advice we tried to give and why it was good advice. It will do your case no good if you try to nit-pick or point fingers at any thing we might have done better. It will likely be seen as you trying to justify your behavious rather than you acknowledging, owning your bevhaviours and learning from these mistakes.
Reflect upon how you should have behaved. Explain what you should have done in particular instances you evidence. Relate this alternative behaviour to the guidance given by P&G.

If you go about this the right way, we should be convinced that you have a clear understanding of what you did wrong, why it was wrong and, most importantly, how to avoid repeating similar behaviours in the future. It will show that you actually have a clear understanding of P&G and how it should be applied. I would strongly recommend you draft your response/appeal of your ban in your sandbox. You can then use your sandbox talk page to ask for clarification, advice and feedback before it is submitted. While I can't speak for the other editors involved, we have all tried to guide you so far. I am prepared to respond to any such requests. How you interact with others on your sandbox talk page and how you react to any feedback given will also evidence whether an unblock should be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The types of behaviours i have displayed that have been disruptive include Vandalism: This includes adding false information, deleting content, or making other changes that are intended to harm articles.

some policies that apply to this behavior are WP:ENFORCEMENT, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and Wikipedia:Disruptive user.

some pages where i have made disruptive edits include Iraq war and Iraqi insurgency

one policy that applies to vandalism is Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and i now understand that i have violated this rule because i was making disruptive edits to prove a point or to draw attention to an issue, which i will not do again.

other editors cite reliable sources or go to the talk page of the article, when i just immediately made the edit without any discussion or logic, especially if it was complex.

i should have discussed with other editors to find out if the edits i was making were even necessary at all in general, and if i did find out they were necessary, i should've kept talking to other editors to make sure there was a final decision, just like stated in Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point which says that If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:1C00:325:87F1:714B:6BFE:3FC2 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i forgot to log in when i answered the questions, which is why it's showing my IP

The ANI discussion indicated at least three broad reasons for your ban. This response really only addresses one of these. While it is not quite following what I suggested, it is indicating that you have a better understanding of this aspect of your behaviour. I think that you need to think about the other main aspect of the behaviour that led to the ban before you are in a position to submit another request to be unblocked. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

another aspect that led to my ban was: Tendentious editing: This is editing with a sustained editorial bias, or with a clear editorial viewpoint contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

the pages where i have demonstrated this behavior were also Iraq war and Iraqi insurgency

one policy that applies to this behavior is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). This policy requires that all Wikipedia articles be written from a neutral point of view, without bias or editorializing.

other editors remain neutral and only go off of what reliable sources say and cite those reliable sources.

i should have discussed with other editors to see what the most widely accepted and correct opinion was about a specific article using reliable sources just like stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) whicgh says: These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali36800p (talk • contribs)

It is good to add this but I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I am guiding you but I am not going to give you the answer since that defeats the purpose of you doing the reflection. You need to look more closely at the ANI report and why EducatedRedneck and I became involved in that discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP range was just blocked because you were evading your block by editing while logged out [3]. That is not the way to get unblocked. - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

everyone who i live with has the same IP, doesn't mean it's me doing the edits Ali36800p (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LITTLEBROTHER excuses will not work. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt blame anyone, i just said it wasn't me Ali36800p (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

besides, my IP was already blocked anyways Ali36800p (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

give me a link to the ANI report if you dont mind Ali36800p (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali36800p, if you have only been editing while logged in, the block of the ip has no effect on you editing here. Not every action requires an ANI. Your protestations here do not help you. MrOllie, if you would please, do your comments refer to this IP 2603:6010:1C00:325:87F1:714B:6BFE:3FC2 that edited this page here or other editing? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other edits from that /64 block. MrOllie (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, what should i do now, can i submit another request to be unblocked> Ali36800p (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This IP edit is something you have attempted to change contrary to guidance several times (eg here). I believe I have been wasting my time here. While you have indicated a clearer understanding of WP:P&G, this ban evasion clearly shows there is no will to modify your behaviour. Consequently, I do not see good reason why the block should be lifted in the foreseeable future. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So should i just delete this account now? Even though that IP edit wasn't me? Ok then Ali36800p (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

anything else yall want to say before i delete this account?? Ali36800p (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so there really isnt a chance of me ever getting unblocked?? Ali36800p (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh by the way, i know this is off topic but there's this IP named 69.58.144.35 who's making disruptive edits on so many pages, someone might need to block him Ali36800p (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alright, fine, tell me how to delete this account Ali36800p (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Confirmed block evasion continuing unabated through to the end of December, 2023. --Yamla (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]