Iistal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The charge is correct. The reason for my appeal is that I do think there are good reasons I should be unblocked. I'd like to emphasize that the innapropriate use of alternative accounts was not to create an illusion of support. The inappropriate use of alternative accounts was to make constructive edits to articles in need of improvement but not getting proper attention from other editors. I was on a six month ban from editing BLPs due to edit wars over very simplistic matters. For a while I complied. The existence of poor, sloppy and often incorrect content on articles that weren't being fixed or even noticed concerned me. I made attempts to bring some flaws to the attention other editors, regarding many articles, via talk pages, and a few times this was a successful approach, i.e. [1]. More often than not, however, it was slow and tedious without solution. And six months is a very long time to wait to be able to edit BLPs again. Another editor brought to my attention that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. The ideal progress simply isn't happening, as evidenced by poorly written content that has existed on articles for probably a decade or more. There are a handful of articles I have read completely and made appropriate changes to throughout by improving references, organizing content, and proofreading. It's very upsetting when I see something I worked incredibly hard on for a long time reverted only for one reason. When my main account was unblocked a few months ago, after the edit wars, I promised to follow the editing guidelines strictly. The issue at hand is that I sock edited to avoid scrutiny, not that I made irresponsible changes to any article content. I ask the administrative editor reviewing this block to keep that in mind. Iistal (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No matter how you attempt to justify your actions, you were using accounts contrary to policy and were blocked accordingly. Typically the standard offer is the route forward in attempting to regain the trust of the community. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 17 November 2016 (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.
Iistal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has been more than 6 months. I would like to return to editing so I can finish/resolve some things. Iistal (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2017 (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.
You are not permitted to blank unblock declines for your currently-active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Iistal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
On more than one occasion I was blocked for a week or thereabouts because of edit warring and personal attacks on user talk pages. Getting impatient I made another account, a sock and was blocked for a longer period. What I have come to understand is that there are times in a dispute when one has to stop trying to get their way and let it be. Iistal (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've made this promise before. I'm not sure how evading your block and your editing restrictions to rack up four more edit warring blocks with a sock shows that you're serious now. More the opposite. Kuru (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2017 (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.
- You distort and minimize your past misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not to mention your current conduct. You've been socking since November 18, 2016, with Kas42 (talk · contribs · count). Amazing how similar your block logs look, too. I don't think it's likely you'll ever be unblocked considering your contentious behavior and socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Iistal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In the 4 months since my last unblock request I have abstained completely from Wikipedia in hope that the next unblock request will be approved. I read the guide to appealing blocks and understand not to repeat the same mistakes making an unblock request. In the past unblock requests I did not own up to what I had been blocked for. Instead I argued the block was wrong. But it was right. I was blocked for sockpuppetry, edit warring, and violating the three-revert rule. First I was blocked for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Then I made new accounts to continue editing while the other account was blocked. I continued edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, and the socks were blocked as well. It was noticed that my different accounts were socks. I think there are good reasons for my unblock this time. I understand, without exception, to never violate the three-revert rule or engage in an edit war. If a dispute occurs it should be addressed on a talk page without making personal attacks. If the dispute is not resolved through a talk page discussion, I should accept that and leave it alone. If it is necessary to bring other editors into the discussion, my request should only address the proposed content change. It should not be a complaint about the editor or editors who oppose the proposed content change. And of course I understand never to make another sock account. I've made good edits. If unblocked I intend to make more. I will keep the rules in mind, and make an effort to avoid commotion. I don't intend to keep editing in the long run and might eventually request an abandonment option. But I know it is necessary to demonstrate good behavior before the possibility can even be considered. Iistal (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
4≠6. If you want to be unblocked, you need to follow the terms of the offer that has been provided to you. To make it easier: you may now request unblocking under the standard offer no earlier than May 15th, 2018. Yunshui 雲水 08:53, 15 November 2017 (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.
Iistal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21576 was submitted on May 20, 2018 19:42:42. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Iistal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is a block currently affecting me because I violated the 3 revert rule, socked, and argued with other editors while edit warring. I believe that I should be unblocked, because I have followed the standard offer and promise to avoid behavior that led to being blocked. If unblocked, I intend to resume editing articles about movies, television and celebrities. I have made good edits before. Iistal (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
welcome back -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I see you have addressed many of the issues surrounding the edit warring. As this is a sock block, please list all other IP's and accounts you have used to edit. {{Checkuser needed}} -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Everything is stale, so the checkuser tool isn't especially useful here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks, no new socks? If no new socks, inclined to unblock.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see anything, but there likely isn't enough data for me to find anything, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
unblocking
I feel the time has come to unblock. If anyone foresees problems, please let me know.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with an unblock now too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)