User talk:AZSH

February 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, you better stop trolling and lying and go back to the discussion.--AZSH (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus your discussion on the content of the article, not on the character of other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion about the article should be in the article's talk page not here. thanks --AZSH (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:03, 28 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here AZSH (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:46, 28 February 2019 (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.

the user M.Bitton has refused to participate in the discussion. --AZSH (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the user ReconditeRodent has proposed a version which was accepted by me and refused by M.Bitton--AZSH (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReconditeRodent can you give your opinion about this article's discussion here please? were your proposals at the end really serious? --AZSH (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yunshui All My blocks were on the same article, if reverting the edits made in the article is causing problems then I won't edit it again but as admins you have to make sure that the other editors are participating in the discussions which was not the case in that article. I have asked the user M.Bitton on January 30 to revert his edits in the talk page but he has refused to do so or to answer.AZSH (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You (still) have not dealt with the issues of your block and given that you have a history of this kind of editing, your current promises to change cannot be trusted. WP:STANDARDOFFER applies - please come back in 6 ,months time with a genuine reflection on your behaviour and block and we can re-consider. Giant Snowman 14:16, 28 February 2019 (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.

Snowman tell me how should I have proceeded in that case please? or what should I do in future cases like that? --AZSH (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have, despite two previous blocks for the same behaviour at the same article, continued to edit war. Wikipedia is a community - we edit collaboratively, not disruptively. In future you should follow WP:BRD, particularly the 'D' element - discussion. Use the article talk page to reach consensus. Giant Snowman 14:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the user to revert his edit in the talk page because there was no consensus but he refused to do so or to answer for more than 25 days. --AZSH (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman any answer? if the other user refuses to discuss then what should you do? --AZSH (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]