collapsing old threads, unblock requests, UTRS notices.
|
---|
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venetia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC) This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I noticed you reverted my edit to add Donald Trump's campaign against clean energy. Can you please specify how I can improve my wording so we can include this in the article? Thanks. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 22:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are having trouble with IP editor 188.96.57.201 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In case it helps, they got blocked not long ago for warring with me and after it expired their response showed that they do not listen or learn. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Steelpillow did and kept many errors in Blohm+Voss page with outdate data, then he erased the Wenzendorf Aircraft Article and put wrongly in the community part. A guy of IT in middle England is not in Germany to know. And then Joobo please stop talking with me. If you UK guys do not know how to make world better, please be out of european community. Do the Brexit, that we are happy here in Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I really do not care for britsh stuff, leave me in peace that is ok. Just going every step to take my attention like being a Boss, I really do not accept. You have not the right of world, neither me, neither anyone. You have our way of thinking, I have mine. But please leave me alone out of your imposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 ( talk) 14:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Please stop edit warring. It looks very clumsy to have the same photo appear in the article twice. I fully understand that in one case the photo is cropped, and in the other case it is not cropped, but none the less, it is exactly the same image of the subject in the article, and therefore adds no new information. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 11:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I checked ISTAT site posted there about poverty.The matter is that reference isn't posted on the right pages of ISTAT.It's on old pages as you correctly wrote of 2014.The last ISTAT report (that is in the same site posted) has my numbers for 2015 and shows poverty in decline.This is testified in these sites. [1] [2] [3].I beg your pardon but i'm not able to " clean" them.Thanks) Benniejets ( talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC) TL;DR. At least most of it. Trying to smear the OP, however, does not speak in your favour. I urge you to keep
WP:BATTLEGROUND in mind. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Keep in mind that Wikipedia
summarizes reliable sources. It does not interpret them. As an editor, you are supposed to leave your political opinions at the
![]() {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
Dennis Brown -
2¢
00:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You got a free pass in the prior ANI thread, but your edits did not go unnoticed. The alphabet soup worth of reasons for the block is because you have managed to touch upon a great many of our policies, in a bad way. Your attitude is simply incompatible with editing in a collaborative environment. Not everyone is cut out for it, so it isn't a statement on your character, just an observation. I think we have seen enough behavior that is incompatible with our goals here that you probably need to find a different hobby, something that doesn't require you to work with others. I don't say this lightly, and certainly not with any malice, I'm sure you are a nice person and all, but Wikipedia is obviously not for you, and it doesn't bring out the best in you. At this point, it is probably not bringing you any joy either. Whatever you do, I hope you find your own bliss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: Neither was I given a reason to how I violated any WP policy ( WP:PILLARS) nor is the claim this project would somewhat not be fitting for me backed up by any evidence or ground by the blocking admin. None of the reasons as stated here necessary for a block WP:WHYBLOCK are applying or were referred to and applied. It does not become clear to what I did wrong and how I massively violated any WP policy to get an indefinite block, and I mean this in a serious and genuine way, due to the fact that no reason to that is provided, at all. Merely a statement that says it is "thought" I would behave somewhat "incompatible" and I somehow would have "touch upon a great many of our policies, in a bad way" is just a vague statement, not factual, and looks like a simple case of punishment ( WP:NOPUNISH) as nothing of substance is provided to that any further. I have not vandalized, have not harassed another user, was not spamming articles, have not engaged in an edit war, made no copyright violations, made no personal attack, made no threats, no legal threats, gave no defamatory information about living persons. In what way a content dispute, in which I neither became personal to the other editor, nor having violated the three-edit-revert rule or any other WP policy, now should even constitute a reason to indefinitely block me is not provided. This content dispute which is the starting point of this is not even mentioned in the block reason. Having content disputes once in a while with another user is one of the most common aspects of Wikipedia, however I remained WP:civil all the time. It is clearly stated that WP:BLOCKP blocks shall not be a punishment, but preventative, yet in what way and what needs to be "prevented" if I have not violated any rules and guidelines, nor have I intentions to get involved any further with the user of concern, does not get clear. Another user edited - I reverted it and initiated a discussion at the respective talkpage - the user avoided that and started searching my edits, jumped on it and initiated an ANI against me - eventually I, as everyone would be doing, portrayed my viewpoint at the respective ANI- and now out of a sudden I was blocked without providing one comprehensive reason for any WP-guideline violation. I am neither violating any policies since the unblock, nor have I any intentions to do that or in any other way aim to obstruct this project. I have contributed massively in the recent time, and just by having a somewhat "normal" and common dispute, which was handled by me according to WP guidelines, is clearly no reason to indefinitely speak out an indefinite block. Without trying to appear to be conceited, but this is simply a case of WP:NOPUNISH - no reason by the admin is given other than the belief/perception I am not good in whatever subjective way that would be. I aim to contribute to this project and follow the guidelines as I did all along the recent months - I genuinely hope that this case could be reviewed as I am not aiming to harm this project.-- Joobo ( talk) 12:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: tl;dr: "I did nothing wrong, why am I blocked?" Which in itself is enough reason to decline the unblock, as you clearly don't understand why your editing is a problem. Yunshui 雲 水 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) 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.
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: As some time has passed and I considered the two situations happened from all sides and viewpoints I would like to appeal for an unblock. I understand and comprehend that Wikipedia is a group project and sometime certain conflicts just appear automatically. Nevertheless working according to WP standards and keeping the guidelines and rules as its pillars is a key to the general success of this project. In case of an unblock I will certainly edit even more cautiously and look for discussion, exchange and consensus. Taking all angles into account is fundamentally necessary as this is what this project also makes it somewhat unique. I see that this group project just benefits if all editor work together and I absolutely aim to do so. Joobo ( talk) 09:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: A straightforward situation has been over-complicated. On 11 March 2017, when you were unblocked, the unblocking admin said "If problems resume, you will be blocked indefinitely and this time it will be permanent." You were blocked indefinitely, again, on 19 July 2017. Consequently, unless this block was in error (which it was not) any unblock would only be made after both a significant passage of time (which there has not been) and after you have made both a clear and convincing case that you understand the reasoning behind the blocks and that you will not edit problematically in the future (which you have not). I am therefore declining your unblock request. Further, your extensive talk page commentaries have become argumentative and unproductive. I am therefore withdrawing your talk page access. Any further appeal would need to be made via WP:UTRS. Just Chilling ( talk) 23:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC) 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.
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #19080 was submitted on Aug 25, 2017 15:13:23. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #19139 was submitted on Sep 02, 2017 10:50:30. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 10:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #19653 was submitted on Nov 01, 2017 18:06:59. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20136 was submitted on Dec 22, 2017 14:50:51. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 14:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20382 was submitted on Jan 19, 2018 16:03:38. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC) @ Coffee: I do not aim to evade the block by writing via IP but it seems that it is impossible to create any other form of contact otherwise. There was no response to the emails send to utrs-admins@googlegroups.com for days. Either they are not read/responded or did not reached the mailbox. You were the last admin responding to the unblock appeal but unlike as stated in the mail by you there does not seem to be an open appeal here on this talk page. Thats the basic question. Maybe you can have a look at the mailbox. Again, I do not want to evade the block but there simply does not seem to be any other way than by this to create a contact. I hope one can exercise leniency here. Thanks for the time and effort, Joobo -- 84.136.2.195 ( talk) 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20641 was submitted on Feb 16, 2018 17:32:06. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20752 was submitted on Feb 27, 2018 15:32:53. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #21057 was submitted on Mar 31, 2018 09:57:01. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 09:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #21748 was submitted on Jun 07, 2018 11:16:38. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 11:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #22736 was submitted on Sep 21, 2018 12:32:53. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 12:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #24095 was submitted on Feb 27, 2019 13:07:13. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 13:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #25500 was submitted on Jun 06, 2019 15:14:48. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: I would like to appeal for an unblock. After 2 years of the block I fully understood my misbehavior and deeply regret it. In retrospect I view my actions from back then as poor, stupid and unproductive, which led to the block. I am sorry to not have lived up to my own set standards and goals. I like to be able to prove that those are no shallow words. If I can add value to the project, I would be grateful; as Wikipedia is unique. If I could add some content, delete vandalism, correct or update pages etc. I will proof my promise of being the Wiki user I claim to be and saying to myself. Thank you Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 11:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC) 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. |
Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I like to appeal for an unblock. I misbehaved in a way in 2017 which is not to pardon. I interacted with certain editors on the wiki articles of "AfD" or "Frauke Petry" mostly in a matter, by pressing points and edits which were not in order with Wikipedia guidelines, nor any set of self set standards. I partly assumed bad faith in the edits, and discussions especially, which I should not have done. I am fully aware of that and regret such false and stupid behavior. To resolve any potential issue of edits or structure one should strictly follow the Wiki guidelines, and I did not do that to the extend I should have done. My focus was laying on an edit style of pressing my points too hard, too narrow minded, where I should have simply layed back and let things be. I am sorry for that. I am sorry for the unnecessary work and energy admins had put in to that. If it comes to editing on wiki everyone has to follow the rules and guidelines, and I like to prove that I changed from then. After an unblock I will not rush into something like that again, any disc battles, edit battles etc. I neither want that, intend that, have the nerves for that, nor even are those my goals. I have not even the power for such an ardous exchange like back then. If something like that would occur, I would things just be, not engaging in anything like back then; others can dicuss them out. I mean that. If i am allowrd to add some value once in a while, correct some mistakes, update numbers, include references etc. I d be happy and grateful doing that. I like to show and prove my words if given the chance. Everybody can see and overview my edits at any time. Thanks for the time reviewing.
Decline reason:
When you are ready for us to carry your unlock request to the Community via WP:AN, please ping one of us. Please understand that if the request is rejected, it will be tantamount to a WP:CBAN. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
@ Dlohcierekim: @ Just Chilling: @ PhilKnight: Has this gone to AN to get a standard offer appeal? Since the latest unblock request has been hanging for a week, I would assume not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
collapsing old threads, unblock requests, UTRS notices.
|
---|
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venetia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC) This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I noticed you reverted my edit to add Donald Trump's campaign against clean energy. Can you please specify how I can improve my wording so we can include this in the article? Thanks. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 22:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are having trouble with IP editor 188.96.57.201 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In case it helps, they got blocked not long ago for warring with me and after it expired their response showed that they do not listen or learn. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Steelpillow did and kept many errors in Blohm+Voss page with outdate data, then he erased the Wenzendorf Aircraft Article and put wrongly in the community part. A guy of IT in middle England is not in Germany to know. And then Joobo please stop talking with me. If you UK guys do not know how to make world better, please be out of european community. Do the Brexit, that we are happy here in Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I really do not care for britsh stuff, leave me in peace that is ok. Just going every step to take my attention like being a Boss, I really do not accept. You have not the right of world, neither me, neither anyone. You have our way of thinking, I have mine. But please leave me alone out of your imposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 ( talk) 14:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Please stop edit warring. It looks very clumsy to have the same photo appear in the article twice. I fully understand that in one case the photo is cropped, and in the other case it is not cropped, but none the less, it is exactly the same image of the subject in the article, and therefore adds no new information. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 11:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I checked ISTAT site posted there about poverty.The matter is that reference isn't posted on the right pages of ISTAT.It's on old pages as you correctly wrote of 2014.The last ISTAT report (that is in the same site posted) has my numbers for 2015 and shows poverty in decline.This is testified in these sites. [1] [2] [3].I beg your pardon but i'm not able to " clean" them.Thanks) Benniejets ( talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC) TL;DR. At least most of it. Trying to smear the OP, however, does not speak in your favour. I urge you to keep
WP:BATTLEGROUND in mind. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Keep in mind that Wikipedia
summarizes reliable sources. It does not interpret them. As an editor, you are supposed to leave your political opinions at the
![]() {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
Dennis Brown -
2¢
00:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You got a free pass in the prior ANI thread, but your edits did not go unnoticed. The alphabet soup worth of reasons for the block is because you have managed to touch upon a great many of our policies, in a bad way. Your attitude is simply incompatible with editing in a collaborative environment. Not everyone is cut out for it, so it isn't a statement on your character, just an observation. I think we have seen enough behavior that is incompatible with our goals here that you probably need to find a different hobby, something that doesn't require you to work with others. I don't say this lightly, and certainly not with any malice, I'm sure you are a nice person and all, but Wikipedia is obviously not for you, and it doesn't bring out the best in you. At this point, it is probably not bringing you any joy either. Whatever you do, I hope you find your own bliss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: Neither was I given a reason to how I violated any WP policy ( WP:PILLARS) nor is the claim this project would somewhat not be fitting for me backed up by any evidence or ground by the blocking admin. None of the reasons as stated here necessary for a block WP:WHYBLOCK are applying or were referred to and applied. It does not become clear to what I did wrong and how I massively violated any WP policy to get an indefinite block, and I mean this in a serious and genuine way, due to the fact that no reason to that is provided, at all. Merely a statement that says it is "thought" I would behave somewhat "incompatible" and I somehow would have "touch upon a great many of our policies, in a bad way" is just a vague statement, not factual, and looks like a simple case of punishment ( WP:NOPUNISH) as nothing of substance is provided to that any further. I have not vandalized, have not harassed another user, was not spamming articles, have not engaged in an edit war, made no copyright violations, made no personal attack, made no threats, no legal threats, gave no defamatory information about living persons. In what way a content dispute, in which I neither became personal to the other editor, nor having violated the three-edit-revert rule or any other WP policy, now should even constitute a reason to indefinitely block me is not provided. This content dispute which is the starting point of this is not even mentioned in the block reason. Having content disputes once in a while with another user is one of the most common aspects of Wikipedia, however I remained WP:civil all the time. It is clearly stated that WP:BLOCKP blocks shall not be a punishment, but preventative, yet in what way and what needs to be "prevented" if I have not violated any rules and guidelines, nor have I intentions to get involved any further with the user of concern, does not get clear. Another user edited - I reverted it and initiated a discussion at the respective talkpage - the user avoided that and started searching my edits, jumped on it and initiated an ANI against me - eventually I, as everyone would be doing, portrayed my viewpoint at the respective ANI- and now out of a sudden I was blocked without providing one comprehensive reason for any WP-guideline violation. I am neither violating any policies since the unblock, nor have I any intentions to do that or in any other way aim to obstruct this project. I have contributed massively in the recent time, and just by having a somewhat "normal" and common dispute, which was handled by me according to WP guidelines, is clearly no reason to indefinitely speak out an indefinite block. Without trying to appear to be conceited, but this is simply a case of WP:NOPUNISH - no reason by the admin is given other than the belief/perception I am not good in whatever subjective way that would be. I aim to contribute to this project and follow the guidelines as I did all along the recent months - I genuinely hope that this case could be reviewed as I am not aiming to harm this project.-- Joobo ( talk) 12:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: tl;dr: "I did nothing wrong, why am I blocked?" Which in itself is enough reason to decline the unblock, as you clearly don't understand why your editing is a problem. Yunshui 雲 水 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) 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.
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: As some time has passed and I considered the two situations happened from all sides and viewpoints I would like to appeal for an unblock. I understand and comprehend that Wikipedia is a group project and sometime certain conflicts just appear automatically. Nevertheless working according to WP standards and keeping the guidelines and rules as its pillars is a key to the general success of this project. In case of an unblock I will certainly edit even more cautiously and look for discussion, exchange and consensus. Taking all angles into account is fundamentally necessary as this is what this project also makes it somewhat unique. I see that this group project just benefits if all editor work together and I absolutely aim to do so. Joobo ( talk) 09:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: A straightforward situation has been over-complicated. On 11 March 2017, when you were unblocked, the unblocking admin said "If problems resume, you will be blocked indefinitely and this time it will be permanent." You were blocked indefinitely, again, on 19 July 2017. Consequently, unless this block was in error (which it was not) any unblock would only be made after both a significant passage of time (which there has not been) and after you have made both a clear and convincing case that you understand the reasoning behind the blocks and that you will not edit problematically in the future (which you have not). I am therefore declining your unblock request. Further, your extensive talk page commentaries have become argumentative and unproductive. I am therefore withdrawing your talk page access. Any further appeal would need to be made via WP:UTRS. Just Chilling ( talk) 23:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC) 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.
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #19080 was submitted on Aug 25, 2017 15:13:23. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #19139 was submitted on Sep 02, 2017 10:50:30. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 10:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #19653 was submitted on Nov 01, 2017 18:06:59. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20136 was submitted on Dec 22, 2017 14:50:51. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 14:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20382 was submitted on Jan 19, 2018 16:03:38. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC) @ Coffee: I do not aim to evade the block by writing via IP but it seems that it is impossible to create any other form of contact otherwise. There was no response to the emails send to utrs-admins@googlegroups.com for days. Either they are not read/responded or did not reached the mailbox. You were the last admin responding to the unblock appeal but unlike as stated in the mail by you there does not seem to be an open appeal here on this talk page. Thats the basic question. Maybe you can have a look at the mailbox. Again, I do not want to evade the block but there simply does not seem to be any other way than by this to create a contact. I hope one can exercise leniency here. Thanks for the time and effort, Joobo -- 84.136.2.195 ( talk) 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20641 was submitted on Feb 16, 2018 17:32:06. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #20752 was submitted on Feb 27, 2018 15:32:53. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #21057 was submitted on Mar 31, 2018 09:57:01. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 09:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #21748 was submitted on Jun 07, 2018 11:16:38. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 11:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #22736 was submitted on Sep 21, 2018 12:32:53. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 12:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #24095 was submitted on Feb 27, 2019 13:07:13. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 13:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) UTRS appeal #25500 was submitted on Jun 06, 2019 15:14:48. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC) ![]() Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: I would like to appeal for an unblock. After 2 years of the block I fully understood my misbehavior and deeply regret it. In retrospect I view my actions from back then as poor, stupid and unproductive, which led to the block. I am sorry to not have lived up to my own set standards and goals. I like to be able to prove that those are no shallow words. If I can add value to the project, I would be grateful; as Wikipedia is unique. If I could add some content, delete vandalism, correct or update pages etc. I will proof my promise of being the Wiki user I claim to be and saying to myself. Thank you Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 11:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC) 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. |
Joobo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I like to appeal for an unblock. I misbehaved in a way in 2017 which is not to pardon. I interacted with certain editors on the wiki articles of "AfD" or "Frauke Petry" mostly in a matter, by pressing points and edits which were not in order with Wikipedia guidelines, nor any set of self set standards. I partly assumed bad faith in the edits, and discussions especially, which I should not have done. I am fully aware of that and regret such false and stupid behavior. To resolve any potential issue of edits or structure one should strictly follow the Wiki guidelines, and I did not do that to the extend I should have done. My focus was laying on an edit style of pressing my points too hard, too narrow minded, where I should have simply layed back and let things be. I am sorry for that. I am sorry for the unnecessary work and energy admins had put in to that. If it comes to editing on wiki everyone has to follow the rules and guidelines, and I like to prove that I changed from then. After an unblock I will not rush into something like that again, any disc battles, edit battles etc. I neither want that, intend that, have the nerves for that, nor even are those my goals. I have not even the power for such an ardous exchange like back then. If something like that would occur, I would things just be, not engaging in anything like back then; others can dicuss them out. I mean that. If i am allowrd to add some value once in a while, correct some mistakes, update numbers, include references etc. I d be happy and grateful doing that. I like to show and prove my words if given the chance. Everybody can see and overview my edits at any time. Thanks for the time reviewing.
Decline reason:
When you are ready for us to carry your unlock request to the Community via WP:AN, please ping one of us. Please understand that if the request is rejected, it will be tantamount to a WP:CBAN. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
@ Dlohcierekim: @ Just Chilling: @ PhilKnight: Has this gone to AN to get a standard offer appeal? Since the latest unblock request has been hanging for a week, I would assume not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)