User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:8D38:412:2186:51A4

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64

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).

2600:1700:8680:E900:8D38:412:2186:51A4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Yamla: @Ponyo: Well as I stated in the appeal, I can't post "there" again, per the situation. I feel like I've covered every angle of interpretation in the three pastes I made, so, while I can write a summary here, please do review them https://pastebin.com/G3GyS7ah https://pastebin.com/kJJyyVz8 https://pastebin.com/CvVJ7nVY . The block obviously occurred to artificially end a dispute, the admin considered WP:OUTRAGE. I merely reverted edits to a talk page banner, against editors refusing to discuss the banner's legitimacy. If anyone has experienced IDHT behavior, what about me who gets my every effective point ignored and unresponded to. I have gone out of my way to respond meticulously to every point made on that talk page, a fact which got me blocked specifically to censor me. The rfc governed general weight, and most people agreed with me partially, but only mentioned the medical infobox not the banner nor the article's classification as medical. The only person to mention the infobox in their comment agreed with me, then 3 people disagreed making consensus 2 against 3 where IDHT behavior compelled all participants to stop responding as soon as I provided source confirming suicide a historical, anthropological, and cultural phenomenon. The other two sections relate to the banner and objectifying language. Once ANYONE responded to the banners section treating me with the dignity of someone whose opinion matters enough to respond rather than express IDHT behavior, I would not revert them.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This unblock has got stale, with no changes in over a week. It is clear therefore that no administrator is willing to unblock you ate present. If you wish to be unblocked, please request another unblock, with a more convincing reason. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 23:09, 30 December 2018 (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.

The block coincided with the following attempted post:

:{{ping|Graham87}} I would dispute categorizing articles on cigarettes, alcohol, driving, and other causes of death as medical. If you want to categorize [[death] itself as medical then remove sources according to WP:MEDRS, I fear I must oppose that as well, because "without death, life has no meaning" and civilization would lose itself if every POV implying so silenced.
:As for your comment about consensus on you 2R, consensus implies a finished discussion where no opposes the action to take anymore. Consensus can't occur without a discussion, nor with even one single individual willing to disagree and discuss further; unless you feel willing to exclude them from that discussion but I don't want to believe wikipedia operates that way.
:Anyways no one has responded to a single word I wrote in my original post in this section.
:~~~~

So, no, I didn't express IDHT behavior, but others did.

No, that doesn't qualify as WP:NOTTHEM, because, while I can prove others disruptively added that banner without discussion, I didn't get blocked for that. I got blocked to censor moral WP:OUTRAGE.

I want to emphasize: I did not reverted anyone after they decided to participate in the discussion in the relevant section.

Discovered this contribution page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64 collects all posts by this IP range, so I found the original administrator to respond to the unblock request.

Also, even treating the 3:2 non-consensus as consensus, calling suicide medical does not mean we exclude non-medical sources. Only one editor in the whole rfc mentioned the thought non-"medical" qualify as unsuitable for suicide, calling me incompetent because of that then failing to respond after that or give any reason for their opinion.

Excluding sources requires discussion. A discussion not had, because I have gotten censored without just cause by: User:Berean_Hunter plus User:Red_Rock_Canyon.

2600:1700:8680:E900:8D38:412:2186:51A4 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: you have already used your account to argue and then tried to slip over to using IPs that change to continue it. That is called IP socking and we're not having it, period, non-negotiable. Your reasons for doing this were wrong and are not accepted. If I see you continue pushing the subject with either IPs or your account again, I will indef your account as Not Here and block your IPs for much longer than this round. Shifting to IPs was a stupid idea. Keeping the argument going is worse. Your ship has sailed when it comes to this subject and you need to drop it entirely. Not another word.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.