User talk:JoseLuisMoralesMarcos

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat discretionary sanctions alerts

Per WP:AC/DS, "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." In Special:Diff/1081348446, you posted a discretionary sanctions alert for the "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" topic area on User talk:Elinruby, when there was already an alert dated 24 March 2022 for the same topic area at User talk:Elinruby § Discretionary sanctions alert. Please take care not to send repeat alerts to the same editor within one year of the most recent alert for the same topic area. Additionally, discretionary sanctions alerts are bi-directional; when another editor sends you a discretionary sanctions alert, both they and you become aware of the topic area. There is no need to alert someone who has just alerted you. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

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 ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A per the ANI discussion, your edits are indistinguishable from trolling. I could quote WP:battleground and several other links, but in the end it doesn't matter. You aren't here to build an encyclopedia, so frankly, I don't care what you're here for. It's incompatible with our goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. I was an observer of his arguments and they were reasonables and well structured. How come you can indefinitely ban someone without not only discussing the ban and proving the ill intent/harm, but not even going through the minimal effort to explain how did his actions warrant such an extreme sanction? This is a very disgusting behavior that can only serve to create echo chambers of which must I presume you want to be master of? I want to know if there is an appeal procedure to expose this kind of tyrannical and puerile behavior. 96.20.197.194 (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Blatant trolling at Talk:Bucha massacre, which is the basis for the block. A link to this discussion can be found in #Notice. Only the blocked editor may appeal the block by following the instructions in the guide to appealing blocks. — Newslinger talk 01:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. And sad. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for making a rather uncontroversial suggestion on a talk page, with my proposal being misconstrued as "trolling". I did not respond to the torrent of Personal Attacks from activist users. I wasn´t even informed of the ANI. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were informed of the ANI discussion at the very top of this page. I suggest that you review it if you haven't already. You were not blocked for a single suggestion, but a general pattern of disruptive and trolling behavior that seems to indicate that you have an agenda to wage some sort of right-fighting battle instead of a collaborative attitude and use of logical arguments. This is the definition of WP:NOTHERE, and as such the block is correct. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The decision to block me is completely irregular. The ANI was launched after I fell asleep and I was blocked by the time I logged in the next morning and had a chance to respond. The decision to block me was based on a succint and reasoned proposal to widen the scope of sources and keep some WP:BALANCE posted on the talk page of an article. This was deemed "morally abhorrent" (sic) and "akin to holocaust denial"(sic). I don´t see how any Wikipedia administrator could find this decision normal. Please look into the details of this case. Its so irregular it is almost newsworthy.

Decline reason:

There was nothing unusual with the decision to block you. Yamla (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (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.