User talk:Efc1878

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).

Efc1878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since I am unable to file requests for arbitration nor edit in any page may I ask you how long will I get banned as there is not a timeline here, please. I am a devoted editor and is willing to amend my mistake. I have already been banned for more than 10 days after being involved with an on-going argument and war editing with the editor Qed237. It is clear that I have leant from my mistake and urge you to give me the chance to contribute to the community. I deem I was unfairly treated by the administrator GiantSnowman because he had agenda on me all along and all his decisions were favoured to the editor Qed237 as it is clear they have known each other. All along I was involved in an argument with Qed237 I do think it is unfair for the administrator to block me while Qed237 is free to walk. The argument was started from this regarding timestamp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_108#Timestamps) Please note that no consensus was reached in the end. On a few occasions, Qed237 posted provocative messages on my talk page such as the following. I am not denying I had scolded Qed247 in the past but that was partly down to his winding up on my talk page. Indefinate is not forever. Wikipedia:Standard offer is to wait six months, and then make an unblock request. Qed237 (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Efc1878&diff=780671263&oldid=780671075 @Anna Frodesiak and GiantSnowman: IS this a sock? Has happened before. Qed237 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Efc1878&diff=780235791&oldid=780234135 Ungrounded accusation but the administrator believed in Qed237. My reference: http://www.evertonfc.com/players/k/km/kevin-mirallas from 2012 - 2017. 6+ 9 + 7 + 4 + 4 = 30 league goals. This edit can be deemed as controversial but the statistics are different depends on sources but I took them off from the official site of Everton. Another poster had amended and gave explanation on that issue since. This has proved my edits contributed to the community. Further, Qed237 broke the three-revert rule on a number of occasions but he or she received no punishment (on 13 May 2017). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Mirallas&action=history In accordance to your policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks), it indicated "...this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Now that the administrator GiantSnowman reverted everything I have done, even the edits are uncontroversial. May I ask your goodself is this core value of wikipedia? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thedixies) GriantSnowman changed all the the pages back to the old version without judging or checking my edits are genuine and up-to-dated. Kindly consider my reasons of mitigation. Thank you.Efc1878 (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked because you have engaged in block evasion, yet this unblock request does not address that. Please read WP:GAB before making another unblock request. You spend a lot of time talking about other people's actions, here, and that's completely irrelevant to your block. Yamla (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2017 (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.

Your unblock request is confusing. Your justification for your unblock request seems to be that you should be held to the standards necessary in criminal court, which is obviously nonsense. And then, you note that you did indeed engage in block evasion (I think; certainly, you aren't permitted to create another account to evade a block, but maybe that's not what you mean?). Then you veer off, claiming Wikipedia is a totalitarian regime. I strongly suggest you immediately edit your unblock request before someone else sees it and revokes your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Yamla thank you for your reminder. What I mean was the administrator who accused me of block evasion had no evidence other than he or she suspected me using another IP to edit. He or she just blocked me because of that. I was blocked for one week initially but the ban somehow became indefinitely after a short time. Ok you just told me I was wrong then I thought I can create another account to make contribution, in a good manner after my original account was blocked with the said ungrounded reason. I would like to put on record that the same administrator who keep reverting my uncontroversial editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thedixies) (what is the point of updating statistics and facts then?) time after time without checking the real facts because he or she just feels like it. This isn't a good practice and a good will for wiki. Ok, I guess, like many others, am the victim of administrator who abused his or her power. I accept that. I guess I will stop viewing wiki is the only way out despite making contribution for a significant period. Cheers for replying anyway. Have a goodday Efc1878 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)