User talk:Garsixfour

That thank[edit]

Unfortunately, that thank I sent you was in error. My apologies. Ed6767 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not using this account "abusively" or for "abusive" reasons. I was making a comment on the administrators' noticeboard about their report claiming that I'm "stalking" them but then the block happened. Meanwhile the other user who has been edit warring and disruptive for months gets away scot-free? All my edits were reverted without reasons as well, even though they were constructive. Why? Garsixfour (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the information which led to this block, and I agree with Ponyo's findings. Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 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.

"scots free"? Interesting.... Talk page access revoked. I've fixed your unblock message; another admin will be around shortly to remind you that appeals need to be made from your master account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]