User talk:BeatrixGodard

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, BeatrixGodard, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me. I believe I usually forget the ~ ~ ~ ~. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! BeatrixGodard, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^Read! Talk! 20:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just to let you know, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. User:StopLookingAtMe1 07:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I really appreciate that. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA goes for you too.

I think you should be aware that I do have Leninscat's user talk page on my watchlist and [1] this comment is a violation of WP:NPA. I suggest that you and Leninscat both need to stop this pointless feud and learn how to collaborate like adults. Simonm223 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be admirable if we could. BeatrixGodard (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good step would be not going to their userpage to speculate about their age and reading proclivities. In general the best practice during content disputes is to de-personalize the conflict. I understand that the things they called you are upsetting - and I called them out on it. However I have seen situations where people have ended up sanctioned despite the other party doing something more egregious because they just couldn't let it go. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sound advice. BeatrixGodard (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Leo Frank are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. The bait was just too hard to resist. BeatrixGodard (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your recent changes at Leo Frank, for the reasons I mentioned in my edit summary. If you can address those issues, please feel free to resubmit your work, but please get in the habit of using Preview and spellcheck. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate it. BeatrixGodard (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Handmaid's tale - your edit summary was very misleading

It said you'd removed the Katy school district ban, but that had been removed and you made major changes to the article without mentioning them. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. This was not intentional. My only intention was to remove the Katy Texas thing. My best guess is that I accessed a very old version of the article, thinking it was the current one, and reverted it to a pre-December 2024 version, undoing a couple months of edits. My apologies. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katy School District ban was real, you must restore it where you removed it

You need to go back to your removals and restore it. See [2] Doug Weller talk 07:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I do. As you already know from looking at the differences, the claim made in virtually all of these copypastas was, "In 2024 the book was banned in Texas by the Katy Independent School District on the basis that the novel is "adopting, supporting, or promoting gender fluidity" despite also pronouncing a bullying policy that protects infringements on the rights of the student."

What the link you've just kindly provided me with (which I don't think was ever used as a citation in any of these edits that you want restored) corroborates is that:

1. [Insert book here] was removed from this Texas school district's library

What none of these sources corroborate is that:

1. They were "banned" because of "gender-fluidity"

2. They're all novels

3. This act infringes on the rights of students in that it is ironically contrary to something called an "anti-bullying policy"

It may be true that a school district in Texas removed a bunch of books from their libraries, but that's about it. And not all of these books were "novels", very obviously. It's clearly a copypasta.

@Carfahey seems to have come up with a syllogism that goes like: The school removed some books from the library. The district also removed all books "promoting gender-fluidity" from the library. Therefore, all books removed from the library were removed because they "promote gender-fluidity".

I believe this synthetic conclusion is a perfect example of what is referred to on Wikipedia as "original research", which I've heard is frowned upon here. The pretentious sometimes call it, "All men are Socrates."

I'll try to look out for anywhere else I may have triggered the glitch that you mentioned previously, though, so I can revert it back to the most recent version before I delete it again. BeatrixGodard (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tag or fix the source, not blank content. Please undo your changes, or someone else likely will. 🌊 oceanloop 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, what would you recommend? BeatrixGodard (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For once, stop using misleading edit summaries to censor content on Wikipedia. This will almost certainly result in a a ban. 🌊 oceanloop 05:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get emotional. What I meant was more along the lines of, "How would you re-write the entry to better reflect the sources?" BeatrixGodard (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of book ban content

Please explain why you are removing content about book bans while using misleading edit summaries, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Clockwork_Orange_%28novel%29&diff=1308215134&oldid=1308214995

"original research, irrelevant source" - why did you consider the Houston Chronicle an irrelevant source? 🌊 oceanloop 05:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I explained it pretty thoroughly in some of the posts immediately preceding this one, but to be even more tiresome:

When I say "original research", I mean, "To combine information obtained from multiple sources in order to make a wider claim that is not to be found in any of those sources alone."

In this case, the "original research" followed this logical formula: "Source 1 says that A=B. Source 2 says that all C=B. Therefore, A=C."

Not only is this form of "original research" discouraged on Wikipedia, but it is also logically incoherent.

I believe what may be coming between us is our respective understandings of my use of Enlglish, and not the logical content of my words. When I put "irrelevant source" in an edit-summary, I am not saying, "I, BeatrixGodard, do not think the Houston Chronicle is a relevant newspaper in contemporary America". I am saying that what the Houston Chronicle says about the subject of the article (which is that A Clockwork Orange was removed from a school library) is not relevant to the claim that it was removed because it is it promoted "gender-fluidity" (we both know it doesn't, and it wasn't), nor to whatever the editor is trying to say about "bullying."

Is that any better? BeatrixGodard (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, change it to the fact it was banned using [3] and the fact they didn't comment.

And of course the rest. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely did undo the rest. As far as I know, I think I got it all. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ezra Pound, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know that I didn't add any unsourced content, so I'm going to assume this is a form letter with the blanks filled in, and leave my reply at that. BeatrixGodard (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t figure out why you haven’t read my warning correctly, but it also says poorly sourced. Interesting that you see a white nationalist neo-Nazi website as a good source. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can explain. You said to me, "If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content" that I may be blocked from editing. It would be a little like if I said to you, "If you continue to post pictures of dead dogs on my talk page or warnings that you may block me, I will post a reply like this." It might seem to you that I was implying that you posted a picture of a dead dog on my talk-page, even thought you didn't, just like it seems to me that you were implying that I added unsourced content, even though I didn't. BeatrixGodard (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the warning again. It says "or poorly sourced content", which yours was. I've now explained it twice. If you can't understand that perhaps you should not be editing. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try to be as clear as possible: if all you meant was "don't add poorly sourced content", just say, "don't add poorly sourced content", and not something that isn't "don't add poorly sourced content." If you can't understand that, perhaps I shouldn't bother to keep replying. BeatrixGodard (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Palm Spring fertility clinic bombing

On the talk page of the 2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing article, it has already been clarified here that the perpetrator was not motivated by antinatalism. Given that, I think it would be redundant to create a “related crimes” section on the Antinatalism page, since the incident has no real connection to the philosophy other than the motivation. For comparison, no one has added a completely separate section about the Zizians on the Effective Altruism or Rationalist community pages—so why should a relatively minor and largely forgotten bombing motivated by a equally fringe movement warrant an entire section on the Antinatalism article? By that logic, should we add the largely forgotten Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting to the page of Anti-abortion movements because it had to do with Anti-Abortion violence? The answer should be self-evident. Indiana6724 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it will take me a very long time to read the entire discussion on the talk-page for the 2025 Palm Springs bombing, as well as the Draft and related discussion for and on the potential article for Efilism, and to respond fairly (mostly to the arguments put forward by Zero Contradiction, which are admirably lengthy.) Maybe you're right and you will win me over; though the arguments on the talk page seem to mostly be about why anti-natalism does not imply pro-mortalism, which is fine, but what is being contended is the opposite. I will try to give these arguments proper attention before I edit anything related to the subject again.

However, I think it is worth noting that:

I'm not very sympathetic to your argument that because the bomber said in his manifesto that he was an "efilist" and a "promortalist", and because he didn't specifically state that he was an "anti-natalist", that that means that he's not an anti-natalist. It would be a little like saying, "The source calls the abortion clinic bomber a Christian, but anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows that this isn't true, because the bomber said himself that he was a Catholic!"

(For any admins reading this, the most important thing, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is obviously what the "reliable sources" say (which is that Bartkus was an anti-natalist), not any logical conclusion we come to through the dialectic. But since you chose to have this discussion on my own talk-page (which I'm not sure you should have), and not on the article's talk-page, I think we're less likely to be nottaforummed, so I'll entertain logical discussion.)

Efilism and Promortalism seem to me to be inherently anti-natalist. If pro-mortalists and efilists believe that pro-creating is an act which has "negative value", as you like to put it, and anti-natalists also believe this, then efilists and pro-mortalists believe in anti-natalism.

I think I know what you might say to this, which is that all or most or at least some anti-natalists in the idealogy, or community that you call "Anti-Natalism" are opposed to things that pro-mortalists and efilists believe. I don't doubt it. Many Christians are opposed to things that Catholics believe. I don't think this means that Catholics aren't Christians.

Let me ask you: are there any pro-mortalists or efilists who don't believe in anti-natalism? There might be. Was the bomber one of them? Well, he described himself as "anti-life", bombed a fertility clinic, and said that birth, existence, etc., were evil. In your words, he believed they had "negative value".

Also, you said, [...]I think it would be redundant to create a “related crimes” section on the Antinatalism page, since the incident has no real connection to the philosophy other than the motivation.

I'm not really sure where to start with that, but I'll try my best.

1. You're saying that the bombing has no connection to anti-natalism, other than that anti-natalism motivated the bombing?

2. You don't seem to know what "redundant" means.

3. You don't seem to know what "redundant" means. There, now you do.

I don't think it's for you to decide whether this bombing has been forgotten or not. I'm not even sure what you mean by it. And I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's role to only host articles about things that haven't been "forgotten".

As for your argument that there's a double-standard: Anti-abortion violence has its very own Wikipedia article, and I do think Zizians should be mentioned on the CFAR page. Maybe I'll work on that next. BeatrixGodard (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would agree that Efilism is antinatalist by definition. However, promortalism is not necessarily antinatalist by itself. Indeed, there are some promortalists and even some efilists who condone natalism under some circumstances. As an example, Gary Inmendham is one of the most prominent promortalists on the entire Internet, and he supports wild animals breeding programs. Inmendham perceives his goals to be so different from antinatalists that he does not consider himself to be an antinatalist.^[1]: 7

I removed the related crimes section from the Antinatalism page, and I explained why in my edit summary. It would be more appropriate to state those crimes on User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism, since it may eventually get published as an article. Promortalism was definitely a motive for the 2025 Palm Spring fertility clinic bombing, but antinatalism was not a motive for either crime. Zero Contradictions (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"[....] promortalism is not necessarily antinatalist by itself. Indeed, there are some promortalists and even some efilists who condone natalism under some circumstances."

Okay. Do you have any evidence that Guy Bartkus or Adam Lanza did? If you don't, then that's not an argument.

I'm not proposing calling Gary Mosher an anti-natalist. I'm not proposing calling him anything. I don't care about Gary Mosher. I care about the subjects I've been writing about, which do not include Gary Mosher.

It is irrelevant to this discussion (Which should really be on the article's talk-page, but this is also so irrelevant to the article that it might as well not be) but interesting to note that the video you linked here doesn't seem to have Gary Mosher even saying what you said he said. It's also interesting that the document you linked, where you claim that Mosher does not consider himself to be an anti-natalist, seems to say on the very first page that Mosher is a prominent member of an anti-natalist organization, and that it's the authors of the document who don't consider Mosher to be one of them, not Mosher himself. I have not read the whole document yet. BeatrixGodard (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shall move this discussion to Talk:Antinatalism. Zero Contradictions (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. BeatrixGodard (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_ "I'm not really sure where to start with that, but I'll try my best.

1. You're saying that the bombing has no connection to anti-natalism, other than that anti-natalism motivated the bombing?

2. You don't seem to know what "redundant" means.

3. You don't seem to know what "redundant" means. There, now you do."

1. Yes, similar to how the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting is not included on the Anti-abortion page or on any other page about a belief/ideology.

2. Needs clarification.

3. Again, needs clarification. Respectfully you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting is not included on the Anti-abortion page or on any other page about a belief/ideology.

It actually is. It has its own page.

1a. This is really more of a question about your unique view of philosophy and logic, but when you say [...]I think it would be redundant to create a “related crimes” section on the Antinatalism page, since the incident has no real connection to the philosophy other than the motivation, are you really saying that the motive for a crime is not "connected" to the crime? I am ignoring here your use (or misuse) of the word "redundant."

2. How and what could I help clarify?

3. How and what could I help clarify? There, that help? at all? BeatrixGodard (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, there have been numerous crimes associated with anti-abortion violence, but this information is not included on the Anti-abortion advocacy page itself. In the same way, there does not appear to be sufficient notability or any reason to justify adding a “related crimes” section to a long-standing philosophical topic simply because of an isolated and obscure bombing motivated by a equally fringe Ideology.

2. lol

3. lol Indiana6724 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there does not appear to be sufficient notability or any reason to justify adding a “related crimes” section to a long-standing philosophical topic simply because of an isolated and obscure bombing motivated by a equally fringe Ideology.

Actually, I think Wikipedia policy is that if there are a number of reliable sources on it, there may be.

Since you seem very much in favor of using the status quo on other Wikipedia pages (especially abortion-related ones) as a guide (which I'm not sure is a Wikipedia policy), would you be amenable to creating a page for "Crimes Related to Antinatalism" instead? BeatrixGodard (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with the "Related crimes" section on User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism if that draft passes. However, for antinatalism proper, I do not believe that a single bombing is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Moreover, I think it could be misleading and potentially harmful to conflate antinatalism with Efilism, as the two are as different as dogs and rabbits—distinct categories that are not meaningfully comparable. Indiana6724 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with the "Related crimes" section on User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism if that draft passes.

I think that's a great idea, but as it stands, it hasn't, maybe because a number of the sources are self-published Amazon books. Perhaps we could work on it together.

I do not believe that a single bombing is notable enough to warrant inclusion.

That's one of the reasons that I added more than one crime to the list of related crimes.

I think it could be misleading and potentially harmful to conflate antinatalism with Efilism, as the two are as different as dogs and rabbits—distinct categories that are not meaningfully comparable.

You really like to repeat the "dogs and rabbits" analogy, don't you? I think this is number two. But dogs and rabbits are both animals. They're both mammals. They both have fur. They have lots of things in common, actually, even if they're not interchangeable.

Likewise, there may be a difference between the online community known as Efilism and the slightly better-known and older ideology of antinatalism, but what they have in common is what's important here, which is that they believe that birth is a tragedy. BeatrixGodard (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that's a great idea, but as it stands, it hasn't, maybe because a number of the sources are self-published Amazon books. Perhaps we could work on it together."

1. If you want to make a contribution, go ahead.

"That's one of the reasons that I added more than one crime to the list of related crimes.

2. You would need to raise that on the relevant talk page, but I doubt it would be accepted, as a similar proposal has already been discussed and rejected here.

"You really like to repeat the "dogs and rabbits" analogy, don't you? I think this is number two. But dogs and rabbits are both animals. They're both mammals. They both have fur. They have lots of things in common, actually, even if they're not interchangeable.

Likewise, there may be a difference between the online community known as Efilism and the slightly better-known and older ideology of antinatalism, but what they have in common is what's important here, which is that they believe that birth is a tragedy."

3. Yes, dogs and rabbits are both mammals, but that doesn’t make them meaningfully comparable categories. Likewise, antinatalism and Efilism may both view procreation negatively, but their philosophical foundations, scope, and contexts are quite different. Antinatalism has a broad historical and cross-cultural pedigree, whereas Efilism is a very niche, internet-originated framework with its own distinct claims. Lumping them together would be like calling rabbits “dogs with long ears”—technically you can argue for some overlap, but it’s ultimately misleading. Indiana6724 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Antinatalist Community Letter. Internet Archive. 20 May 2021.

Assume good faith policy

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Zero Contradictions (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I remember you. I think I interacted with you on here once. Could you tell me when and where I did such a thing? BeatrixGodard (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can read WP:ANI#WP:NOTHERE, persistent battleground / hostile behaviours of User:BeatrixGodard for more information. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care.

A moderate amount of edits you've made have been reverted. Please take care.

Please remember that there's no rush, and there is no deadline, and it's okay to slow down your pacing when refining an article. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's a very vague message. Could you be more specific? BeatrixGodard (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A large amount of your edits to the main space have been reverted.

While I’m not critiquing anything on your edits, it’s likely that your current style of editing tends to lead to disputes. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be onto something. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Discussion

There is a discussion involving your behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NOTHERE, persistent battleground / hostile behaviours of User:BeatrixGodard. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for starting this discussion. I was just about to start one myself, so I'll leave a reply to support the discussion that you started. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. BeatrixGodard (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for ANI Discussion

I was planning to start an ANI discussion about you, but IrisChronomia already did that. Regardless, I figured that I should leave a comment on this user talk page to inform that I have also filed a complaint against your behavior, just to be safe, per WP:ANI. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BeatrixGodard (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

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

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi. I've been blocked indefinitely following an ANI into me. Numerous very strange allegations were made about my behavior. I was only able to address one of these there, and extremely briefly, in part because I was blocked less than six hours after being notified that this ANI even existed. I can address all of these very interesting allegations, and would be ambivalent too, but felt that to do so while they were still incoming would've been a waste of time, and that it was better to wait. I guess this was a mistake, since I ultimately wasn't given the chance.

I really do think that this block is unfair, and not only because I didn't get much of a chance to respond. Heavily (and selectively) edited "quotes" of mine were served up as evidence of my "strange" behavior. A pretty cordial (on both ends) discussion between myself and another editor, in which that editor conceded that he had made a small mistake (before we both came to a peaceful consensus) was listed as evidence of my WP:NOTHERE and WP:CANTHEARYOU behavior.

I could cite many more examples, but I'm afraid that doing so would be counterproductive, since my tendency to dissect the individual claims made against me, one by one and at length, seems to have been one of the things that got me blocked in the first place. As such, will refrain from doing so for now, unless I'm explicitly asked to by an admin.

Since my first couple of negative interactions on here, I really have gone out of my way to be generally polite, and I think the verifiable discrepancy between what I've been accused of saying and what I've said should speak for tself. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked because of the ANI discussion, or because of your lack of response there. You were blocked because of your editing behaviour which led to that ANI discussion. Therefore saying that you "didn't get much of a chance to respond" misses the point.

Since your appeal doesn't address the reasons for your block, I have no option but to decline it. If you wish to appeal again, make sure to demonstrate clearly that you understand why you have been blocked, and how your behaviour would need to be different going forward, if you were to be unblocked. (See WP:GAB for advice on formulating your appeal.)

As for the reasons for your block, see the entirety of this talk page, above.

Optionally, you may also wish to address the issue of abusing multiple accounts, which was suggested and not conclusively ruled out, as referred to in the aforementioned ANI discussion. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2025 (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.

BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]