User talk:Gr33nshorts

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gr33nshorts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reply to Yamla's message: Thanks for your response. I have no concerns about sharing my IP publicly; it is 77.46.197.43. Thanks again. Gr33nshorts (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It's fixed now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using open proxies, or VPN services to edit? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly ask, because it appears to me that you're editing from ranges that belong to different continents that are very far apart. These sort of services frequently get themselves blocked due to other users abusing them. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 19:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FDW777 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2021 (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).

Gr33nshorts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. First, I admit to wrongdoing; I was involved in edit warring. In my defense, although my account is not new, I’d never performed anything beyond minor edits, and did not know these rules. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, of course, and I admit that fault. When editor FDW777 left a message on my talk page warning me, I stopped immediately and planned to move to the article talk page to continue debate there.

Instead, I was blocked for Block Evasion by editor Ivanvector. Not only did I never evade a block—I only saw my block a few hours ago, and have been doing research on unblocking since then—but Ivanvector’s block violates WP:BP. It violates WP:BLOCKNO, since the content dispute involved him. Its length in particular (6 months) makes it feel like a retaliative block, in violation of WP:NOPUNISH and the fact that it was applied after I had stopped the edit war.

Moreover, the Ivanvector’s block ignores “Enforcement by Reverting” in WP:EVASION, since the original material is conceivably in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The blocking editor also seems to violate “Little or no interest in working collaboratively” under WP:NOTHERE, which I believe I attempted.

Once unblocked, I will continue this debate over accepted channels, such as through the article’s talk page and Dispute Resolution, seeking more consensus—the reverting editors sought no “productive, congenial editing style” as per WP:BLOCKP—and hopefully shielded from any WP:POVRAILROAD that may arise. Thank you for your consideration.

Gr33nshorts (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no block on this account directly. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2021 (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).

Gr33nshorts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. This is now an IP unblock request. In response to editor 331dot's response to my unblock request (thank you for your prompt response): I understand; thanks for the clarification. However, this is only my IP, not a shared one, and as you can see, the only activity on this IP is from this account. Consequently, the situation as I described it, other than the inaccuracy of account vs IP ban (lesson learned, thanks again), stands. I thus convert the previous request to an IP unblock request, if I can do that. Same situation description. Thank you for your consideration. Gr33nshorts (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide the IP address privately. Yamla (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (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.

Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]