User talk:EzEdit

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Systems of measurement. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thread has been opened on the Talk Page to discuss this matter. You are invited to contribute. Martinvl (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've changed your mind and have now decided to participate again in discussions there as you have been repeatedly asked to. EzEdit (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of multiple accounts

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was away for a few days, and came back to this! Luckily, even though it sounds serious, a mistake has clearly been made. Let me quickly explain one reason why I cannot possibly be DeFacto, I only arrived in the UK at the beginning of September. Reading back up that DeFacto page (it's in the archive section now, btw), it is clear that that user was UK-based, all the IPs shown resolve to UK locations. Presumably an admin can check the Wikipedia logs and see that my IP had a US location up until September 5, then it changed to be UK. In fact, further up the archive, in an entry of August 28, when I was still in the States, it clearly states I was "unrelated". QED. EzEdit (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) No, an admin can't see what IP addresses you used. A checkuser can, but it wouldn't prove anything anyway: you say yourself that you have moved from one country to another, and many persistent sockpuppeteers are adept at using proxies. (2) No, the earlier checkuser did not "clearly state" that you were unrelated: it stated that you appeared to be unrelated, which is not the same at all, for several reasons,including those I mentioned in point number 1. (3) Behavioural evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. (4) Even if this account is not a sockpuppet, it has been persistently used for disruptive and tendentious editing, and should remain blocked for that reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2013 (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.