User talk:MedicineBlood

As you must have expected would happen, this account has been blocked from editing, as it was created for the sole purpose of evading other blocks. Pages which you have been attacking can be protected for a while to stop your disruptive editing, but please don't make it necessary for them to be protected for a long period, as that will cause inconvenience for legitimate editors, as well as stopping your disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia as long as your account is subject to a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I got email; now email gets you!-- copying my email response for transparency and openess
''Discuss with user who removed your comment. If you are the now blocked IP who left and removed a message on my talk page, there seems to be some assertion of block evasion. Oh, I see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MedicineBlood Bit of misrepresentation, there. I did not tell you to do anything. Discussion is standard part of WP:BRD. Block evasion and obfuscation are not. Thanks, You should discuss your block evasion w/  JamesBWatson. ''--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

unblock discussion
I won't decline your repeated and disruptive unblock request. I am WP:involved. Someone fresh should look at it. You need to appeal your blockedness at your original account. And, do please consider your words carefully.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Response
This is my original account. The administrator JamesBWatson is also "involved", after repeatedly deleting my comments on the Talk page of Life Extension despite your suggestion, Dlohcierekim. MedicineBlood (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A few of pieces of advice
You appear to have misunderstood or overlooked various things you have been told, so I am posting a few comments to try to clarify things for you. If you take note of what I say and try to follow it then your likelihood of eventually being unblocked will be considerably improved. I hope those comments will be helpful to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Whatever Dlohcierekim may or may not have said to you, editing while evading a block is not permitted, and it is Wikipedia policy that any such block-evading edits may be reverted. Doing so is part of enforcing administrative actions. Wikipedia's policy on administrators say "an administrator who has interacted with an editor .. purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor."
 * 2) You have now posted six unblock requests (here and on an IP talk page) none of which makes any attempt to address the reasons for your blocks. Instead you have made comments about things that other editors have done and that you don't like. Unblock requests like that stand about zero chance of being successful, as you will know if you took the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before making an unblock request. (You had been given that advice six times before you posted your latest unblock request.) I therefore strongly advise you to read that guide if you have not yet done so. Only by doing so will you give yourself any reasonable chance of being unblocked.
 * 3) Continually posting unblock requests which do not address the reason for the block, and which therefore stand no chance of being accepted, achieve nothing except for taking up the time of administrators, who could instead have spent the same time on more useful work. For that reason an editor who persistently posts such time-wasting requests may have his or her talk page access removed. You actually already know that, as you have already had access removed from the talk page of one of the six IP addresses you have used. For that reason I seriously considered removing your talk page access now, but I have decided to leave it, to give you a chance to take note of what I am telling you, and edit your latest unblock request so that it does address the reason for your blocks. When your latest unblock request is reviewed, the administrator who reviews it will be free make a judgement as to whether to leave or remove your talk page access, but if he or she decides to leave it, it is very unlikely that it will not be removed if you make yet another unblock request that does not address the reason for the blocks. I advise you therefore to think carefully about those reasons, and what you can say to deal with the issues involved.

You are not permitted to blank declines for existing blocks. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You asked me to review your block. Sorry, I've already reviewed it so it'll have to wait for another admin. I do suggest you take advantage of the information JamesBWatson provided, though. --Yamla (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I find another administrator?MedicineBlood (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have an open unblock request, so another administrator will be along shortly to review it. This generally happens within a few hours, there's nothing more you need to do for this to happen. Occasionally, unblock requests aren't sufficiently convincing either way and then they get 'stuck'. In that case, you may see your unblock request taken down and you would be asked to reword it. Of course, you are free to reword your request any time you like. --Yamla (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

One last try to help you

 * There still seem to be some things which you haven't understood, so I am making one more attempt to clarify things for you.
 * I see that you did eventually try to start a discussion on the talk page of the article you had been editing, which is good. Unfortunately, however, you did so only after the disruption that other editors thought you were causing had gone so far that you had been blocked from editing. By the time it reached that stage more of an indication that you understood the reasons for the block was needed.
 * Your first block (so far as I know) was on the IP address 68.33.78.98. The reason given in the block log entry was that you appeared to be editing in a promotional way. Also, although it is not mentioned in the block log, the block would have been unlikely to occur but for the fact that you were just stubbornly plugging at your preferred version of the article rather than discussing the matter and trying to reach agreement. It may help you to read Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, if you haven't already done so. If you are to be unblocked then you will need to address those issues.
 * After a while talk page access for that IP address was removed, because it was felt that your posts there indicated persistent failure to respond to what was said to you, meaning that your posts were wasting time.
 * You continued to edit both on that IP address's talk page and on four other pages, using the IP address 68.33.77.84. Whether you had deliberately changed your IP address to get round the block or whether it had been changed automatically by your ISP, you clearly knew that by using that IP address you were avoiding a block that had been placed in order to stop you from editing.
 * Because you were still editing while a block intended to stop you from editing was in place, the IP address 68.33.77.84 was also blocked. One minute later you edited using the IP address 68.33.79.57. Examination of the relevant editing history showed that you had previously edited using three other IP addresses in the same range, making a total of six, so blocking the latest one was likely to be futile, as you would probably just move to yet another one. I therefore blocked an IP range covering all of the IP addresses that you had used. (All of the recent editing from that range had clearly been from you, so the risk of a fairly short block causing collateral damage to other editors was small, but I was reluctant to make a long term block on the range because in the past there have been edits which I have no reason to think were from you.)
 * You then started editing from this account. You created the account seven minutes after the second IP address was blocked. Whether or not the changes of IP address had been automatically imposed by your ISP, you must have known that by using an account your were avoiding the blocks on those IP addresses. You also knew that the intention of those blocks was to prevent you from editing, so you knew that you were evading the effect of those blocks.
 * If you are to have any chance at all of being unblocked you must show (1) that you actually are taking note of, and understanding, what is said to you by other editors, (2) that you understand what was considered problematic about your editing, leading to your original block, and that you will not do the same things again, (3) that you understand that when you are blocked you must not edit, whether by IP editing or by using an account, apart from edits on your talk page to request unblocks.
 * I have really gone as far as I can, and much further than most administrators would have done, to give you every chance to be unblocked. Now it is up to you. If you can take on board what I have said and act on it, then good. If, however, you post one more unblock request that does not address the issues I have mentioned, then I can virtually guarantee that your talk page access will be revoked, and your only chance of being unblocked will be to wait six months, as you were told on UTRS. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of bias
When I posted the message above I had not seen that you had sent me an email telling me that I am biased against you. If you believe you have evidence that that is so then you can post it here, for independent assessment. However, as I have said above, I have gone overboard to give you every chance, going much further than most other administrators would have gone. I also wonder whether you think all the other editors you have come into contact with are biased against you, including the five editors who have reverted your article edits and the other administrators who have blocked your IP addresses, and I wonder what explanation you have of the fact that not a single editor has ever supported your position. Are we all biased against you, part of a gigantic conspiracy? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop emailing me
You need to stop emailing me. ANy discussion can take place on your talk page, in the light of day, where all can see. Especially if it is to complain about another user. And stop trying the shift the blame for your block evasion onto me. --Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Since it is now clear that you have been pestering more than one editor with emails, I have withdrawn your email access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -- And here I thought I was special and unique. I'm crushed.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
You knew you were not permitted to remove declines for existing blocks. You chose to do so again and as such, I have revoked your talk page access. This is a clear-cut case of WP:IDHT and you have persistently refused to listen to anything multiple people have told you. This leaves you with WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I told you to stop emailing me.
You are blocked for block evasion, pure and simple. If you read your talk page, you will see you are blocked from sending email and editing your talk page not because of anything I did, but because of what you did. . This is all because of your behavior. Stop trying to shift blame for the consequences of your acts. Your perpetual "I did not hear it" behavior makes me question your ability to collaborate on this project. My advice is to try at WP:UTRS, 'cause I'm not about to reverse or. For future reference I have blocked your email. --Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth keeping this page around?
At this point, there's no reason for this talkpage to exist - as such I think a uncontroversial speedy delete under G6 is plausible. Do the admins here agree, or am I just a normal user with an unpopular opinion here? Kirbanzo (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't agree at all. Years ago in situations like this talk pages were deleted, but the result was that if the same editor came back (either by being unblocked or by sockpuppetry) it was difficult for editors to check the editor's history, which created various problems, such as difficulty in tracing sockpuppets. For that reason deleting the page could be very unhelpful if he or she does return. If, on the other hand, the editor never returns, then it really makes no difference whether the page is deleted or not, so it may as well be left here anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)