Got pinged to this from Talk:Golan Heights Law. In regards to - diff1, diff2 - I asked you to follow something - 1 edit every 30 hours (so - your second edit - the revert - should've waited until 5 June - and you should've instead opened a talk page discussion - and present evidence that not all the opposition voted against) - the rules here really are arcane, and if you do what I ask - you will always stay out of the 1RR zone. Also when asked to self-revert - always self revert - you'll avoid trouble that way. In general - when you are challenged - it is best to respond on talk and present your sources - if you revert you'll just get reverted again if the other editor doesn't agree. In short - please self-revert for now.Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is knowledge after exposure. It's not even close to complicity, or incompetence. In fact, staying out of it was good working practice as a mentor. Thanks for volunteering and doing something difficult which I myself rejected the opportunity to do, Icewhiz. I could see many times that the user would just ignore you through what I believe were kind efforts to guide them. "It is better to have loved and lost," ~ R.T.G20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy - I had no indication that VwM.Mwv was a sock - the impression I got was quite the opposite - of a new user user, possibly young, with some willingness to learn, though rash and obstinate at times, and with some positive contribution. I am not privy to the CU evidence (nor am I familiar with the alleged sock master), so I will WP:AGF the match as long as I don't hear otherwise from VwM.Mwv. I am obviously disappointed. VwM.Mwv - if you feel this CU-block is in error, please contact me to discuss how to appeal. If this is not in error - I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Standard offer and consider your route forward from here (for the standard offer - stopping with socking, coming clean, and after a period (6 months) appealing). Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
