Singleissuevoter
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I note the edit warring notice was declined and that my amendments to the article have not thus far been overridden. They are good, well-referenced changes - grateful for your thoughts on them on the talk page. Singleissuevoter (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Singleissuevoter, you are invited to the Teahouse!
 | Hi Singleissuevoter! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
Singleissuevoter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Blocking is designed to address abusive edits. Edits to the [block chain] article which were the subject matter of this block order clearly received editor consensus on the [article's talk page]. Please remove the block.
Decline reason:
You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts; you'll need to address that and only that in any unblock request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
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.
Singleissuevoter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This account has simply not been abused. I am a new user. I accepted the feedback, read up on conventions for arriving at consensus and made constructive edits to the page, which were well-referenced,and arrived at a consensus with the user who submitted the block request on the other account to which you refer on the article's talk page. Further edits are going to be made through a collaborative process in accordance with Wikipedia conventions. Additionally, one-off users submitted these block requests have blanked those collaboratively agreed-upon contributions, meaning that my participation in this discussion will go some length to producing an unbiased Wikipedia article on this subject. Singleissuevoter (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That's great, but when your account gets blocked (Rt665j4) and you create another account to avoid that block (i.e., this one), we call that block evasion, and we don't allow it. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
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.
Singleissuevoter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'll quote [WP:BLOCK]: "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved." [WP:AAB] permits blocks to be revoked. I'm trying to improve this article. If you prefer I can evade the block again, but considering my edits have been constructive (go ahead and read [how much good information the partisans are trying to remove] from this article for yourself) I'm of the view that the block should never have been put in place to begin with. Singleissuevoter (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Threatening to evade your block again if you are not unblocked is a surefire way to have your request declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
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.
- What is your relationship to User:Rt665j4? --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The same user, --jpgordon, albeit one who has since taken the time to learn the proper way to arrive at a consensus with other users on Wikipedia. The contributions I have made under this account were both heavily researched and agreed by consensus on the [article's talk page]. They were then blanked by the user who requested this block, because that user disagrees with those edits. There's abusive editing here, but it's not coming from me. Singleissuevoter (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Operating multiple accounts is, with only VERY limited exceptions, ipso facto abusive editing and against policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- The same user, --jpgordon, albeit one who has since taken the time to learn the proper way to arrive at a consensus with other users on Wikipedia. The contributions I have made under this account were both heavily researched and agreed by consensus on the [article's talk page]. They were then blanked by the user who requested this block, because that user disagrees with those edits. There's abusive editing here, but it's not coming from me. Singleissuevoter (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)