12.174.49.50

July 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months 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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2022 (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.

Justice please

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The statement given justifying the denial was someone accusing me of block evasion and me not addressing that. I’m not conducting block evasion. I don’t know what someone else did at this location. I didn’t speak to it because it’s irrelevant and therefore not worthy of attention. However, I have now spoken to it. So no longer a reason. And then the other statement made is an accusation that me making a statement that a article concerning a politician is written with the particular political slant means I’m only here to promote a political agenda. Nonsense. My statement is that the article itself is currently drafted in a way to promote a particular political agenda. It would be a shameful act if we’re trying to come up with every reason under the sun to block anyone from pointing that out. The very thing that I’m being accused of is what is happening in the article and the blocking of me for stating such a fact in the talk page is promotion of a political agenda in itself — regardless of if this was the motivation for such block or not.

Decline reason:

"However, I have now spoken to it. So no longer a reason" Doesn't work that way. That's literally the only thing this block is for. You may not be doing it. You may not want to talk about it. But that doesn't change that you need to. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Was blocked simply for voicing concern about a biased article on its talk page, where such concern belongs; and mentioning concern about apparent bias of an editor. Seems shameful that this would be a reason to block. Editors can’t take questions about their edits? Politician’s talk pages can’t have notes questioning their neutrality? Wikipedia is doomed if this true. 12.174.49.50 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The stated reason for the block is block evasion, but you do not address this. Your edit to Talk:Eric Swalwell clearly demonstrates you are here not to collaborate but to push a political agenda. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (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.

---