User talk:FrogCast

October 2018

Your recent editing history at Murder of Seth Rich shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calton | Talk 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reversions of other users were emotional outbursts, not actual well argued points.

FrogCast (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (FrogCast) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing!

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Notice of Edit-Warring

I suggest your read WP:BRD. If your proposed change is not accepted, you can't keep adding it back in, even if you think you have great reasons to add it and the editors arguing against you do not have good reasons. You have to seek WP:CONSENSUS for your proposed changes. If you just keep reverting, you will most definitely get blocked.

Please keep in mind you are a new editor and don't know all the rules here and you those who disagree with you have been here a long time. You'll want to spend some more time learning the rules. Fortunately, we do have the rule WP:AGF. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC) I am not a new user. This is a newish account, and I am familiar with the tactics used by your ilk. Making emotional outbursts, without giving an argument, and then claiming that I need consensus from others who are just as emotionally oriented and argumentally bankrupt; it is asinine. FrogCast (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need consensus. Always. Period/full-fucking-stop. Self-serving garbage rationalizations about "emotional outbursts" and such cut no ice.

I am not a new user. Really. So, what was your previous account? Has is been blocked or banned? --Calton | Talk 12:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasnt. Stop being an emotional wimp. FrogCast (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop arguing like a child and answer the question. What was your previous account? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Assume good faith. FrogCast (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's assuming bad faith? You have two very experienced editors asking you to explain a claim you made. So explain. If you can't or won't, we can go get an admin to find out. Of course, that route will almost certainly result in you being sanctioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming bad faith. You do not need to know which account it is. You can just assume I am telling the truth. Go ahead, get an admin. You are an emotional wreck who does not use logical arguments. Which includes the appeal to "Experienced editors": Its not an argument. FrogCast (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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) 12:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22857 was submitted on Oct 05, 2018 12:50:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, get an admin.

Well, that worked out well for you. So, while we're waiting: what was the previous account? This area has a long, long history of blocked editors, so your flapdoodle about "good faith" doesn't apply. If it's in good standing, why the switch? --Calton | Talk 17:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to tell you my previous account. Given the topic, and the fact that you act like a shill, I would be putting myself in danger revealing any identifying information to you. FrogCast (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to you lecturing people to AGF? Now you're insisting that editors would track you down and do you physical harm? How about we try a different question. How old are you? I mean physically, not how long have you had an account here. Because you're really acting like someone who isn't old enough to know better. If that's the case, you might catch a bit more slack by admitting your age. And no-one cares enough to track you down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user's age doesn't matter. I don't know of any age minimum or maximum on here. but...--David Tornheim (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it fucking does. If this editor is 12 years old, they need guidance, but if this editor is 44 years old, they need to be indeffed. Please READ comments before you respond to them. I know I've asked you to do this before, David.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment before replying. No twelve year old I have encountered has the writing skills or the ability to make the edits this user has. I was a teacher, and I have graded the work of kids in secondary ed. (6-12). People often ask adults who act immature, "How old are you?" to mock them. That's how I read your comment, especially given the tone of the entire message and previous exchange. It sounded like a cop in interrogation saying, "Just admit the crime now, and things will go better for you, and we'll help you." I could not imagine this defiant editor answering the question. Also, I don't feel it is appropriate to ask editors their age based on outing or "anyone can edit". It just seemed invasive to ask.

I agree with you the maturity level of the editor's responses and editing behavior is that of a twelve year old and must be treated as such, regardless of actual age.

However, I agree with you that if indeed we knew the editor was under 18, we would probably treat them differently than an adult who should know better. I was not aware of the difference in the rule or its application about indef. That does seem reasonable. If you were truly sincere in wanting to help this user by asking that question, then I am sorry I read your question as I did. If the editor is, in fact, under 18 and wants to admit it, then I encourage them to do so. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta admit that I didn't read your comment. Mostly because I'm the father of a 10 year old who possesses an equal if not superior grasp of spelling, grammar and technical skill (and a similar tendency to respond to peer criticism with ineffectual insults which we have been working on). I'm also well aware that people who are drawn to WP (as FrogCast quite obviously is, if you look at their user page and follow the links there) tend to be higher functioning in an academic sense than the mean. So essentially, I realized that your premise was bollocks and stopped there. I stand by my question and would like to see it answered, so as to better inform my future dealings with this editor. If the editor is unwilling to answer, then I will simply have no choice but to treat them the way I would an adult saying the same things.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the link on the user's user page that has the same name Frog Cast and listen to any of the recordings/videos? [1]. I did--even before FrogCast got blocked. Voice is no teen. One part says "these works are derivative of Wikipedia." It's strange though that the edits seems quite different than the video lectures. But I didn't listen to very much. It's possible the edit is someone other than the person in the videos and is just using the name. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voice is no teen. That voice is no human being, either, so I guess you're arguing that this editor is a computer.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Perhaps so, he says he has a great script that is fixing all our entries, and some of the edits do look like a program like Lint_(software) found the problem. As a teen, I might have been able to write something like that... Who knows? :) --David Tornheim (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to one again. I must admit I did not realize that was a computer generated voice! They so much improved, even over my GPS voice. Wow. The inflections are so reasonable. So, yeah, I guess a teen could make that script. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know, what is the previous account? I agree that you will be sanctioned for not answering the question, especially if the previous account has sanctions against it already. I suggest your read WP:SOCKPUPPET. I regret having mentioned WP:AGF. It's not to be used like WP:BLUDGEON to dismiss any and all bad behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no previous account. I've already asked a CU to look into it and heard back from them. I'm confident that the claim about a previous account was just bluster.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Apparently, the editor doesn't realize how bad it looks to say you have a previous account, and then refuse to reveal it. I had assumed based on the early edits that the editor had some prior experience with Wikipedia to be fixing wikilinks and templates. Your belief that it could be a teen appears to have more merit than I realized initially. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I think? I think this conversation has long passed any vestiges of usefulness to this project, and isn't even remotely entertaining for me, so I'm going to stop participating in it. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 02:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton:, @MjolnirPants: Y'all sure this isn't the same person: [2]?

I have no idea, but a CU didn't come back with anything. I think the last edit from that account is old enough to be stale, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 11 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

All right, I am going to be brief in respect to your time. I do not think it is productive to get stuck in the weeds, I just want to focus on the future.

My last response was right before I took a vacation, starting just before Canadian thanksgiving. I just logged back in today.
I had mentioned I had a previous account.
I refused to tell what it was, because the users asking are creepy and weird.
Convinced that I was a sockpuppet, those users tried to get me banned.
Because of my vacation, I was not here to respond to this:

I too would like to know, what is the previous account? I agree that you will be sanctioned for not answering the question, especially if the previous account has sanctions against it already. I suggest your read WP:SOCKPUPPET. I regret having mentioned WP:AGF. It's not to be used like WP:BLUDGEON to dismiss any and all bad behavior.
— --David Tornheim (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable, and sorry for the mixup. The issue here is that there are users here who seriously creep me out, namely User:MjolnirPants Because of comments like this:

Sources or STFU. Also, if you think my comment was an "emotional outburst" then you have absolutely no idea what an emotional outburst (or an argument) is. I know your little friends over on /pol/ might have told you that saying that will "trigger" people and make it easier to argue, but they were wrong.

Yes, it fucking does. If this editor is 12 years old, they need guidance, but if this editor is 44 years old, they need to be indeffed. Please READ comments before you respond to them. I know I've asked you to do this before, David.
— ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, given the political nature of his feud with me, I feel there is a good risk at doxxing and subsequent real-life harassment. Seeing as my previous account contains personal information that could identify me, I would rather reveal this previous account in a private message to my reviewer if possible.

Thanks.

Re: Issues regarding behaviour I do not deal well with what I recognize as passive resistance and bureaucracy, especially if it operates in an environment where one feels as if he is standing alone against a cabal of ideologically possessed people. Speaking on the extremely contentious issue of Seth Rich's murder, being met with soft resistance and very shallow arguments that I think are designed to be low effort and vague truisms that are impossible to defend, I developed a complex which probably achieved the goal of those attacking me. It is that part of me which is responsible for any lapse of civility, and I am strategizing how to mitigate this in the future.

To be honest, they are extremely good at this. My hat is off to my opponents; they are perfectly insufferable people. FrogCast (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.

Decline reason:

That's essentially just an attack on everyone else, blaming them for everything, and it is not the way to get yourself unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:30, 24 October 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.

Please don't edit inside a closed unblock request. If you wish to make a new unblock request, someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific on your decline? FrogCast (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were essentially attacking everyone else and not addressing your own behaviour which led to the block. That is what you need to address, and you need to convince a reviewing admin of how your approach to editing and to disagreements over content will change if you are unblocked. I suggest you have a read of the guide to appealing blocks (as suggested in the block message) before you make a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific as to who I attacked? Why am I not allowed to defend myself against User:MjolnirPants? Why did you overlook what I said here: "It is that part of me which is responsible for any lapse of civility, and I am strategizing how to mitigate this in the future." FrogCast (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific as to who I attacked? MjolnirPants.

Think of it this way: Consider Fred who drives recklessly and at excessive speeds and has gotten so many speeding tickets that he loses his license. Fred yells at the officers who issued the tickets claiming to have done nothing wrong. Fred goes to the authorities to ask for his license back. Rather than saying what the authorities want to hear, "I'm sorry. I screwed up. I will drive more safely in the future," Fred instead says, "Those officers were rude to me! I should never have lost my license! This system sucks." Arguments like that don't help. Whether the person holding you accountable was rude to you is completely irrelevant as to whether you broke any rules and plan to follow them in the future.

FYI. If you continue down the path of blaming others, you're at risk that the admin. who gave you the harshest punishment removes your talk page access too. See User_talk:JzG#User_talk:FrogCast.

Your offer to reveal your previous identity to an admin. you trust shows good faith. I'm not sure on the rules about changing identities. There might be a way to get any previous sanctions transferred to your current account by an admin. who knows how that all works. Are there any admins. you would trust sharing that information with? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me; that behavior is not helpful. You will not see any of it moving forward. I just want to focus on the future. I am fine with whichever admin assuming they promise not to share it. FrogCast (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who you attacked? Have you already forgotten "my opponents; they are perfectly insufferable people"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I refused to tell what it was, because the users asking are creepy and weird. Nope, not a personal attack at all.

Your asking for specific examples of personal attacks, given that ludicrously obvious personal attack, means you're either being disingenuous or are not competent to edit here. That, and your initial comment after being blocked, especially the line about "an article pertaining to a politically motivated murder" -- with its assumption of the truth of a debunked conspiracy theory -- tells me that, per the blocking rationale, you're not here to build an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 23:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that was a poor strategy and not particularly helpful or mature. I am going to be a bigger person, and am ready to move forward; is there anything else standing in the way of an appeal? Thanks. FrogCast (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to move forward Calton? Would you like an apology? Im happy to give you one. FrogCast (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You move forward by making a new unblock request which properly addresses your behaviour and which contains no attacks on others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Looking to move forward. Behaviour has been addressed; see above. It will not happen in the future.

Decline reason:

"You move forward by making a new unblock request which properly addresses your behaviour and which contains no attacks on others." This unblock request does not do this. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 25 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Asking other users what issues needed addressing, I was told this: ":You were essentially attacking everyone else and not addressing your own behaviour which led to the block. That is what you need to address, and you need to convince a reviewing admin of how your approach to editing and to disagreements over content will change if you are unblocked." and ":Think of it this way: Consider Fred who drives recklessly and at excessive speeds and has gotten so many speeding tickets that he loses his license. Fred yells at the officers who issued the tickets claiming to have done nothing wrong. Fred goes to the authorities to ask for his license back. Rather than saying what the authorities want to hear, "I'm sorry. I screwed up. I will drive more safely in the future," Fred instead says, "Those officers were rude to me! I should never have lost my license! This system sucks." Arguments like that don't help. Whether the person holding you accountable was rude to you is completely irrelevant as to whether you broke any rules and plan to follow them in the future." and "If you continue down the path of blaming others, you're at risk that the admin. who gave you the harshest punishment removes your talk page access too." I see what they are saying. Blaming others is not helpful, and is immature. You will not see any of it moving forward. I also offered one offended user an apology.

Decline reason:

On one point, I actually disagree with my colleagues: an apology – contrived or genuine – is not required in order to be unblocked on Wikipedia.

Of greater interest to me: in your short time editing Wikipedia, you have edited articles on the world's leading free encyclopedia to introduce phrases like a left wing conspiracy theory which suggests that Russian hackers were responsible for the DNC Email leaks. You are editing in breach of our requirement that articles be balanced and neutral in tone and contain only information that is sourced. I deny your unblock request. AGK ■ 22:39, 31 October 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.

On one point, I actually disagree with my colleagues: an apology – contrived or genuine – is not required in order to be unblocked on Wikipedia.

For the record, that's a misreading of anything I've ever said. I have never asked for nor do I expect an apology: I was merely pointing out that the supposed apology was never made, that it was, in the words of the late Tom Magliozzi, "booooo-oh-oh-oh-gus". --Calton | Talk 03:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frogcast apologizes to Calton, but presumable stands by all the idiotic attacks made against me (after all ,they specified "one offended user"). Not looking good, thus far. Also, AFAIK, they still haven't disclose their "prior account", and have yet to acknowledge what actually led to them getting blocked in the first place. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frogcast apologizes to Calton...

Actually, he did no such thing. He threw out the possibility of giving one if it would get him what he wanted, which means it would not be an actual apology if he did do it. I'm not seeing ANY addressing of behavior, I see someone saying whatever random thing he thinks will get him off the hook. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I see this as WP:GAMING. Everything above suggests that the content issues will continue but that he will be more careful about overt attacks in order to be able to continue the content issues. Nothing about this edit is remotely appropriate. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I want to do is do small edits again. That was all my account was prior to the edit in Seth Rich. Sorry for losing my cool to "Calton" and "MPants at work"; It was immature. After this experience, I will not make any more political edits anyway, so you two will not see me regardless. As you can see, I am much more controlled now than before, so I am capable of taking stock and changing my underlying character. FrogCast (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any reviewing admin: FWIW, this editor has used up my entire supply of WP:AGF and I, personally, would not support an unblock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 26 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The previous admin who reviewed my recent unblock cited that I was in violation of having a non-neutral point of view, for this quote:

a left wing conspiracy theory which suggests that Russian hackers were responsible for the DNC Email leaks

Fair enough. I want to say that my intent was to provide a neutral point of view, as I was addressing this quote from the article:

   The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories,

I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided. That is what I attempted to do, however I am happy to admit that I was mistaken. Let me try to correct this by deferring to the admin's judgement, thus:

If I understand him correctly, he was saying that given two competing narratives (right wing vs left wing conspiracy), the position that is heterodox (Russia is a left wing conspiracy) lacks the weight from reliable NPOV sources, and thus there is no equivalency to these statements, and I should have realized this before making such an edit.

I certainly will correct future behavior based on this. Thank you.

Decline reason:

"I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided." Funny how you then failed to provide a source for "left-wing conspiracy theory" and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend. Huon (talk) 01:52, 3 November 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.

November 2018

Your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked due to abuse of the unblock request template.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23167 was submitted on Nov 06, 2018 23:33:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion has taken place at User talk:JzG#Because I said I would. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also an appeal at AN opened on 13 November, and archived on 27 November without a definite result. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]