User talk:JMVFabulist

December 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Subject of entry has included claims that cannot be independently verified, persistently deletes information regarding his full-time employment in an attempt to mislead users, and deletes mention of unfavorable reviews of novel from legitimate sources such as Kirkus Reviews

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant to your block. Yamla (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The changes implanted were in accordance with the Wikipedia content policy, specifically, with regard to neutral point of view (NPOV), i.e., fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:14, 14 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The stated reason for not unblocking the account cannot possibly be valid because the alleged "abuser" has a single account and has edited a single page. Also, it is unclear why edits that are factual, relevant to a balanced perspective on the subject, and include valid sources are not considered relevant. If a balanced perspective, such as mentioning a full-time career that spans multiple decades or reviews of a novel from reputable sources and with valid citations, in an individual's bio is a trigger for a ban, then I apologize. Whoever had previously edited this piece clearly sought to cherry-pick reviews and give a false impression of the subject's career. My intention was to correct those edits in accordance with the Wikipedia content policy. But clearly I was wrong in doing that, though, honestly, I don't know why.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuse of multiple accounts.

You appear to be evading the blocks you earned on at least the accounts Huckleberry Pie and Crickets, and Tomato soup and Spam.

Blocks apply to the person, not the accounts.

If you wish to be unblocked, stop creating new accounts to evade your blocks. Carefully read the Guide to appealing blocks, and follow the advice there. SQL ^{Query Me!} 23:27, 14 December 2022 (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.