User talk:BI5427

BI5427, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BI5427! 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 Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Yzd.exe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

BI5427 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was still new when I got banned for edit warring, since then I’ve contributed very much to the community by adding references to countless books, journals and much more other stuff. I’ve shifted away from content that may be controversial.

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) 16:02, 23 November 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.

I understand and condemn the two reasons I got blocked: Edit warring and creating a new account under the same IP. I have understood the basis of how the system in Wikipedia works. I’m going to continue making contributions as you’ve seen me do in this account (I’m not sure if you can monitor my work or not). BI5427 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

BI5427 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand and condemn the two reasons I got blocked: Edit warring and creating a new account under the same IP since my first one was banned. I have understood the basis of how the system in Wikipedia works. I’m going to continue making contributions as you’ve seen me do in this account (I’m not sure if you can monitor my work or not) which was all clean & well made and caused no disputes. I have another unblock request that I’d want to be rejected at talk page:yzd.exe . I’ve been working on Azd, Nabateans, Nabatean Kingdom, Zahran. It’s just Arabian history and lineage; Mainly by translating what authenticated Arabic Wikepedia sites (“Protected from vandalism”) claim about the given tribe or confederation.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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) 14:30, 31 January 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.

I, now, prefer working on Arabian history on the Arabic Wikipedia; This one is honestly too racist for my tolerance at the moment. Perhaps I’ll come back at a later time. BI5427 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this one*, excuse me on that. BI5427 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

BI5427 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, it’s been a while since I’ve been banned for various misconducts, such as sock puppetry and edit warring. I, now have a fair amount of experience through being an active editor in the Arabic Wikipedia, I’ve learned much of what the Wikipedia standard is for many different situations wether it be it be editor altercations or suitable citations and much more, cheers!

Decline reason:

While your participation elsewhere may well make it possible for you to succeed in an unblock, saying you've learnt what the standards are is not helpful - instead cover what you did wrong and how you're going to avoid it were similar situations to occur. With regard to the socking, you'll also need to provide a list of all sockpuppet accounts used and why you're requesting unblock on this account rather than Yzd.exe Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 26 April 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.

Hello, Nosebagbear! Kindly, review my new unblock request, cheers BI5427 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unblock Request

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).

BI5427 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand and condemn the actions that I’ve done that resulted in this edit block; Edit Warring, and sock puppetry, I’ve made two suck puppets: Yzd.exe, and Post Chlorophyll in attempt of supporting my viewpoints concerning some edits in an article. I will now engage in persuasive conversations in the talk page of any article if any edits are to be found controversial or conflicting.BI5427 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've taken a look at your account on the Arabic Wiki. I don't speak Arabic, but from a machine translation it appears that you were partially blocked for disruption there on articles about the same subjects that you were disrupting here, and just from last month I see you engaging in hostile discussions on your talk page with other editors about sourcing about the same subject. I don't think we need you coming back and starting off on the same thing again. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 5 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.

Resulted to this block* BI5427 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Update’’’ I don’t have the password for the other accounts. BI5427 (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

BI5427 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your impatience, but there's no point in having an "adminhelp" template ad well as an unblock request. It may take some time, but the unblock request will be dealt with eventually. JBW (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. BI5427 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, the partial ban was half a year ago, and about the “hostile discussions”, there were none, me and a fellow editor were talking about disputed info about a character , with no edit warring, nothing, just engaging in dialogue until we reached consensus. BI5427 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BI5427, that wasn't the impression I got, but maybe I was mistaken. I'll take another look tomorrow at those discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay👍 BI5427 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BI5427, I've looked again at the discussions on your talk page over there, and at this article talk page. I am relying on machine translation, so there is always the possibility that the translation is wrong, but I see you accusing an admin over there of being arrogant, and arguing at great length with two administrators about material you want to include, which they do not think should be in the article; by the end of that conversation one of them warns you that you are a drain on their time, and tells you that if you reinstate the content again, they will block your account. That does not look to me like the sort of editing that we want to see imported over here. I'm sorry, but you are going to have to build up a lengthy track-record of constructive, collaborative editing over there before anyone is likely to consider an unblock here. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is it because I argued once with an admin about certain material? As far as I know you could as much as you want as long as it’s considered constructive dialogue; I will admit that there was slight tension over the issue but it never included edit warring, blocks or anything close to that terminology. BI5427 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]