Mattevansc3

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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) 17:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Mattevansc3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I would like to request an unblock under the "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" guidelines. When seeing a coordinated effort on Twitter of a group of individuals to turn a page into a soapbox by making edits that breached the COI and Advocacy rules, I directly edited those sections. After reading through the rules I understand that was not the correct process and the correct course of action would be to politely discuss the issue on their talk page, then if that didn't work, to contact an administrator. My intent was always to contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive manner. When I saw it being diminished by those with a personal agenda I acted i n haste. Mattevansc3 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'll unblock you on the condition that yyouu take disputes to the talk page instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:- would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• PhilKnight, not at all. I'd do it but I gotta run. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Alright PhilKnight, class is over, and now I've refreshed my memory. You saw the same thing, of course, in that history; Mattevans, read along so you know. The block came because of a huge amount of disruption and edit warring, started by an IP and continued by User:Autieeditor, then by Mattevans, then by another IP. I could not establish outright socking, but it is pretty obvious, given the newness of the account and suggested also by the locations, that we are dealing with a few editors, a group of editors, who moved in together--this, Mattevans, is called "meat puppetry". See WP:MEAT, and see my comments on the talk page, Talk:Neurodiversity#Disruption, and the response by User:Dlohcierekim. So, when you say you were "seeing a coordinated effort on Twitter of a group of individuals to turn a page into a soapbox", that is EXACTLY what I was seeing when I saw y'all's edits. So let me add to the things that you mention in your unblock request, which PhilKnight kindly granted: thou shalt not coordinate off-wiki to repeatedly make edits in an effort to overwhelm the other editors. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Mattevansc3! You created a thread called (Un)paid Editors - Notifying someone on social media you've made an edit about them at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)