User talk:93.93.167.73

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).

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

Request reason:

It seems that I have been blocked by someone who wants policies to be violated. I fixed violations of NPOV, BLP, NOT and others, as well as obvious mistakes which contradict the MOS. Now someone's gone through and undone all those changes, deliberately making the encyclopaedia worse. There is no possible justification here, either for blocking a clearly correct user, or for restoring clearly incorrect text. 93.93.167.73 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are the user referenced in the block reason, edits by blocked and/or banned users are not allowed to stand, as that would defeat the purpose of the block. If you want your valid edits to stand, you need to make a successful unblock request from your original account. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 25 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not the user referenced in the block reason. You can tell that because they, apparently, are a long term abuse case, and I, meanwhile, have made only good edits, many of them required by policy. Do you think that, because of some strange suspicion about who I am, encyclopaedia articles should violate key policies? I don't think you'll find any support for such a position in the policies. It is after all completely illogical. The English idiom would be "cutting off your nose to spite your face". I make only good edits, and thus I should clearly not be blocked, and nor should the good edits I made be undone. 93.93.167.73 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block evasion is obvious. The problem is not primarily the content of the edits but the inability to engage in civil discourse or to perceive the possibility of being wrong. Huon (talk) 09:32, 25 September 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.

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.