User talk:Noirisblack

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).

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

Request reason:

Unbelievable! No, I'm not a sock puppet. I hope someone with sense can unblock me, please. Then I have to straighten out some overzealous admins... Noirisblack (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It would help if you came up with a reasonable explanation for why you randomly showed up on an obscure Wikipedia talk page and supported all the arguments of someone you've never met. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm a software developer in London, UK, working on machine learning for tooth recognition (yes, it's a niche topic, but wide open for research).

I discovered Root analogue dental implant a while ago, and found it very innovative and interesting. There was a flurry of activity on this page at the beginning of the year, after a long period of inactivity. The new material that was added was very useful for me, especially because I'm not a medical specialist, and there's very little on Internet about this topic.

But then the page went through an edit war, which I followed closely. Finally, I thought it's time to chime in with my opinion. And I do have a strong opinion. I see a legitimate medical device, with definite advantages over conventional treatments, backed by solid science going back decades. The article may not be perfect, but instead of useful editing and critiquing, it was mangled beyond recognition - by people who simply don't have the expertise to make these kinds of edits.

I disagree with these actions, regardless of whether they're carried out by random individuals or established editors. The fact that it was done by editors makes me all the more furious; they're sanctioning an (apparent) expert in the field, for publishing knowledge that is of wide general interest. I saw a lot of back-and-forth about conflicts of interest and promotion, but none of it tackled the article's material. The author called for discussions about the article, and none were forthcoming. Don't you see something wrong with this? I most certainly do. So I signed up, added my opinion, and finally here we are...

I don't know the author. I have no connections to this subject, beyond a professional interest. I'm an individual with a strong opinion about the sharing of knowledge by knowledgeable people, and the converse.

Decline reason:

You can't be unblocked until you explain your connection to other user, the connection that is now confirmed to exist. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2019 (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.

Noirisblack (talk) 10:50, 10 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Days later, and still blocked! I gave a detailed response, above, but no reply from the admin(s) who blocked me. What is going on? Noirisblack (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One request at a time. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2019 (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 answer you're question, the reason have not acted on your unblock request is that the whole point of such requests is to allow for review by a different administrator. While it would be within my purview to accept a valid request, I find your explanation entirely unconvincing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests go into a queue worked by volunteers. Like any volunteer project, delays are inevitable. As mentioned above, the process can also be bureaucratic. We discourage administrators from answering multiple unblock requests from the same editor. This is to enforce review of administrative actions. So, every unblock request needs a different volunteer to review the evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Checkuser needed}}: Can we compare Noirisblack to Logicwhatelse and Zahnfeeeeeeeee? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to call this one Likely bordering Confirmed. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 21 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here, watching proceedings, realising that Wikipedia has truly Kafkaesque corners: Examples include instances in which bureaucracies overpower people, often in a surreal, nightmarish milieu which evokes feelings of senselessness, disorientation, and helplessness. Characters in a Kafkaesque setting often lack a clear course of action to escape a labyrinthine situation. Disturbingly true... Noirisblack (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, you're right, I apologise. Would someone please unblock me? I am not a sock puppet. Noirisblack (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. You will need to deal with all the issues associated with all of your accounts. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2019 (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.