91.127.73.122

May 2021

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am sorry about the edit warring fiasco. I shouldn't have acted so rashly while reverting and adding content. While I may have been in a legitimate dispute with another editor on Efraín Ríos Montt and David Stoll's articles, it was best to resolve it on the article's talkpage, and I apologize for letting myself get carried away and wantonly start edit wars instead of moving the discussion to an appropriate space. When possible, I'll resolve the issue at hand at the appropriate talkpage instead of reverting back and forth, and I will do my best to remain calm in similar possible disputes in the future. 91.127.73.122 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You are welcome to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. The block has been converted to a partial block that allows talk page participation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Convert to an article-space partial block to see if that happens? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever you decide, ToBeFree. And I don't care if you simply unblock them, maybe with a 1R condition or something like that. I was wondering if this (and the other) IP was perhaps also this editor, because there are some similarities in tone, but they're actually taking the opposite tack on Stoll. They will need to be careful since this is a BLP and we can't have mudslinging (I'm not saying they did that!). I'm particularly interested in the Beverley article from this edit. A good way forward for them would be to propose an edit change involving that article on the talk page, and asking those who reverted to discuss. If they can't explain why they reverted, or what's wrong with that article, then the IP should be free to insert it. Does this make sense? I guess I'm sort of advocating for yes, only a partial block, at the most, and access to the article talk page (s). Mind you, I'm saying this because they (finally) engaged in positive conversation on a talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies  Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(WP:DISCFAIL may help) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

---