50.107.81.26

January 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Gab (social network), you may be blocked from editing. Tsumikiria (T/C) 11:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Just because you don't like an edit, doesn't mean it's disruptive editing. Furthermore, it's fixing the several NPOV issues with the article. You can use the talk page to discuss, but I don't care what you think on the subject. (Redacted) 50.107.81.26 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:50.107.81.26. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 12:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

"Block evasion" isn't proven, this block was improperly made based on a subjective assertion. There is no evidence for block evasion, nor was there any discussion in this issue. I don't currently use or have any accounts that are blocked, banned, etc. There is insufficient evidence for this administrator to issue this block for this specific reason.

Decline reason:

If you are not evading a block, you should request an account at WP:ACC to avoid this problem in the future. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2019 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Again, the block has insufficient evidence. 50.107.81.26 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2019 (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
  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) 23:52, 8 January 2019 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Okay, ill follow your 'rules' "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." The block is not necessary to prevent damage because the block is not valid. There is not any sufficient evidence to prove that i am block evading. The block is no longer necessary because I am not block evading, and evidence doesn't support this block anyways. I understand that I've been falsely blocked I will not cause damage or disruption and will make useful contributions instead (Which i've done) The evidence for this block is insufficient. I suggest that it be removed immediately. Blocking a user based on "block evasion" because you didn't like what they said, and letting your buddy admins keep him down. Let me repeat, once more, and my last time. I AM NOT BLOCK EVADING. THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS BLOCK IS INSUFFICIENT. THE BLOCK IS INVALID. P.E.R.I.O.D. Next will be an email to Arbitration committee for administrators censoring me. This whole situation is absolutely disgusting, and just goes to show how Administrators will block you for doing something they don't like, and other Administrators will defend their decision. I will continue to escalate this matter if need be. As far is it has to go. 50.107.81.26 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you are evading a block, you need to request to be unblocked from that account per the instructions you were given. As your requests here are repetitive, I am removing talk page access. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2019 (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.

It's three days. Wait out your block, think about how you could work more collaboratively and stop tilting at imaginary windmills (administrator conspiracy theories). This is not about TRUTH, it's about acceptable editing behavior so think about how you might be a better editor instead of creating an enemies list. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are Ridiceo, best to throw in the towel now and find another hobby. If you're not, come back in 3 days and try to be more collegial next time. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:23:00 GMT for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  331dot (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---