User talk:BeingObjective

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

BeingObjective is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

REMEMBER: WP:RAP before you type anything[edit]

Oh but did I try -

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

December 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23::

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).

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

Request reason:

Can you please unblock the user BeingObjective? He made valuable contributions to some medical articles, such as Drug-eluting stent. See https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Drug-eluting%20stent/ I don't have contact with this person, and I don't know whether he intends to do further editing if unblocked. Still, I think that lesser penalties than a permanent ban would have been appropriate, such as a ban for a few months. Given that the few months have passed, would you please consider unblocking the user? If he eventually decides to go back to Wikipedia, he will see that he is unblocked and probably start editing. I would like to repeat and to emphasize that he made very valuable contributions to medical articles, and he also made expert reviews or the articles where I wrote substantial parts. I believe that his expertise and knowledge would be beneficial to the Wikipedia from the point of view of making a good encyclopedia. I also believe that positive knowledge and contributions outweight the negative actions for which the user was permanently banned. Unfortunately, I was not aware about the discussion when the user was banned, and we were working on an article together at that time. Back then, I would also have asked for a lesser penalty. I hope that you will consider my request and give the user a second chance to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Maxim Masiutin Third party requests are not accepted. This isn't a "permanent WP:BAN", but an indefinite WP:BLOCK, meaning only an admin must be convinced to remove it as it lacks a specific end date. Blocks and bans are different. If you wish to discuss this block with Bbb23, please do so as ordinary comments, not an unblock request, or if you feel Bbb23 grossly erred by implementing this block, go to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2024 (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.