User talk:Joeblackoo

August 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will you unblock me please. Wikipedia won't let you participate in the talk page section of articles unless you have made 10+ edits Joeblackoo (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No warning? No nothing? Just straight to block? Joeblackoo (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits were reverted as disruptive (and rightfully so). Given that you admit that you only made them to game the system to allow you to post on a talk page that is semiprotected, the reason for blocking seems justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, yes. No warning or anything. No leeway for being honest & telling the truth. Just Wikipedia dictatorship and instant block for life. SMH Joeblackoo (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

no warning for first time offenses? Just an immediate block for life? Joeblackoo (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, it's not life ... you're blocked indefinitely, not banned, there is a difference. Someone might unblock you some day, although I do not think that day will be soon. (Maybe the fact that you consider it a lifetime ban tells us more about how you understand what you did than you want us to).

And we've blocked many other users indefinitely who got less warning than you did (see that one warning you did get at the top of the page). I agree with the other admins who have posted here that your clear gaming the system to get to edit a semi-protected page elevates you above (or rather below) the usual level of disruptor or troll we get and justifies an indefinite block. Had it been me, I would have blocked you as clearly not here to edit an encyclopedia. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2023 (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.

Joeblackoo (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request number two

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).

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

Request reason:

I am once again requesting I be unblocked. Per the guidelines for being unblocked: "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead". I am not sure how it can be interpreted that I have not met this guideline. I have been forthright about what I did, not once denying it. And gave a clear answer on why I did it and why it won't happen again. Furthermore, the reason I did what I did was to make a contribution to a semi protected talk page. If you look at the talk page topic that I literally created, you'll see I've engaged users in a productive conversation on the wording of the article. If that's not demonstrating I will make productive contributions, I don't know what is. At the bare minimum I believe an indefinite block is excessive. I believe I have met the necessary guidelines to be unblocked and if not a time period should be set Joeblackoo (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not "blocked for life", you are blocked without an end date. Us merely adding an end date does nothing to convince us that you understand the reason for the block and won't repeat it. That's all you need to do to get the block removed. You say you explained what you did, but I'm not seeing it, maybe I missed it. The system exists for a reason and you tried to circumvent this. I'm also concerned about your "Wikipedia dictatorship" comment(Wikipedia is not a dictatorship any more than you are a dictator in your own personal residence; as a private entity Wikipedia can determine what appears on its computers for any reason or even no reason) and your "compromised by left wing users" is concerning as politics has nothing to do with the use of the word "strategy" or "scheme" from what others have said. Comments like that don't help to make WP:BIAS issues better as they just antagonize the other side. If you want to help us with bias issues, you need to be more civil and collaborative, and be willing to work with those who think differently than you. I don't see a reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2023 (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.

Unblock request #3

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).

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

Request reason:

this would be a lot easier if I was allowed to respond to the unblock decline reason. My last request to be unblocked was declined because the admin failed to read and further disagrees with the demonstrated contribution that I made. That is not right. As an administrator, you should be impartial. I made a contribution that was solid and resulted in page edits being made after talk page discussion, end of story. I have admitted and acknowledged what I did to be blocked was against the rules and it won't happen again. I literally meet the guideline requirements to be unblocked Joeblackoo (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having taken a look at your "demonstrated contribution", I have to agree with the prior declining administrators. It may have lead to a change but we can do without those sorts of edits. Yamla (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2023 (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.