User talk:176.219.154.181

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am a long time IP editor using this IP range. On Stanford Shaw article, in a content dispute, I made a similar statement to that of user Ungitow. This led to user ZaniGiovanni to believe that I am his sockpuppet. The admin who blocked me (Bbb23) taked ZaniGiovanni's statement for granted without verifying whether Ungitow actually used this IP range.
About a month ago another user @Firefangledfeathers: had thought that I was sockpuppet of another user and after I explained him the situation, he took back is assertion and apologized. This is a similar kind of inaccurate relationship assessment.
Please either unblock this IP range or verify your claims by consulting a checkuser.

Decline reason:

Since the user has lost talk page access there is no point in keeping this open. You may still apply via UTRS. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

176.219.154.181 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'd just like to state that this users summary of my mistake is accurate. I hope my mistake isn't being repeated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)