Jump to content

User talk:Joobo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joobo (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 21 July 2017 (→July 2017). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

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:

Please bear these points in mind while editing 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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.


Please carefully read this information:

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.

Template:Z33

Donald Trump

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)[reply]

You can reply here or at talk:Donald Trump because I started a discussion about this. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brian Everlasting: First of all the headline "Campaign against clean energy" was not appropriate, also not the positioning in the BLP article. If there is an actual "campaign" against clean energy would be questionable, yet that is also not the point here. In case there are legislatures by him passed concerning this subject or statements on this matter one might include sourced and adequately written entries in the main article as Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. However, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NOR are key to that. Please close the discussion at the Donald trump talkpage, as it is most likely redundant. --Joobo (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe title it: "Campaign against wind energy" rather than "Campaign against clean energy"? Donald Trump has established a pattern of behavior that is clearly anti-wind and pro-coal, pro nat. gas, & pro nuclear-power. Brian Everlasting (talk)
@Brian Everlasting: At Wikipedia we do not discuss who might have done what or behaved how. We look at what is actually provided by verifiable sources. In this case the section will probably not be included in his BLP article. The best is one initially reads the whole Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration to get a better overview., perhaps something like that is also already included there.--Joobo (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, things done by Trump may only be described in euphemisms. Welcome back to monarchy! --Mathmensch (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral WP:NPOV, as Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS. There is a difference. --Joobo (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 188.96.57.201‎‎

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First of all the location of someone is absolutely irrelevant as long as content is adequately sourced, adequately included and fulfils every other criteria by the WP guidelines. I also do not care much what went on on some other page. I merely notice that you IP edit unadequately, in the article concerned. Furthermore to claim i would "stalk" you is a violation of WP guidelines as you state an false insinuation. Keep to what i said and stop the quarrel.--Joobo (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agata Kornhauser-Duda

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)[reply]

@Sometimes the sky is blue:Then please add another photo for her main image, but do not exclude the double image of her and First Lady of the United States.--Joobo (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the consensus is that a crop of the image with Melania Trump is the best profile photo of hers, there is no need for both photos to appear. It looks very tacky to have the same photo, one cropped, and one uncropped, in the same article. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the photo is merely a couple of days old one obviously has no consensus yet. Since i agree that the cropped photo does not fit in in case the original is also included, i put in another portrait of her from 2015. Now it looks decently to me.--Joobo (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


ISTAT

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)[reply]

Your reaction on WP:ANI

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 door login screen. Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really have to be kidding @Kleuske:. Mathmensch is telling everywhere around i would be "counter-productive" and wants admins to do something - not giving one reasonable point to that. He is stalking my edits and claiming "monarchy" just cause something is against his personal gusto. So, in case you are truly concerned with the Wiki work-atmosphere have a talk with him, not with me. I edit normally as everyone does, he is the one starting all this quarrel cause he believes he found an perfect enemy like he portrays it in his user page statement. And it looks you have similar views like him. I do not know what political views you are referring to but i actually agree, that is why I had to delete the entry, as most likely he just editet the BLP for exactly that reasion, a personal anthipaty to that person. PS: Concerning the entry in the BLP, please read the talk page once again, then it should get clear that this entry of "false" simply technically is wrong, as with the majority of legal situations and we as Wikipedians are not allowed to play judge.--Joobo (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Has it occurred to you your own attitude towards others significantly influences the "work-atmosphere" you experience? Kleuske (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleuske: In case you cannot deal with the reality it is your personal problem, not mine. I merely reverted a BLP violation and gave very detailed explanation to that. I was not the one searching around in other editors actions and initiated defamations arbitrarily. How about you take a step back and reconsider the whole situation - looking in what was actually said on the talk to why I reverted it, before also automatically getting angry simlpy because someone has another stance than you. --Joobo (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwid5qv8hoTVAhXJshQKHevkAdIQFgg9MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilfattoquotidiano.it%2F2017%2F04%2F19%2Fpoverta-listat-l119-per-cento-delle-famiglie-in-grave-difficolta-economica-nel-2016%2F3531155%2F&usg=AFQjCNHwN3InD1JA4NM3BF1lnsaQNy2q_g
  2. ^ https://www./url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPmfTIh4TVAhXJuBQKHWsxBZ0QFgglMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istat.it%2Fit%2Fprodotti%2Fcontenuti-interattivi%2Fcalcolatori%2Fsoglia-di-poverta&usg=AFQjCNFI3enKlndDMUYVSgEpEaEQWKJ4cw
  3. ^ https://www./url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9xI7wh4TVAhUSnRQKHcXRBjMQFgg3MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istat.it%2Fit%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F07%2FLa-povert%25C3%25A0-in-Italia_2015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEFxqgedOcIQIPlTpCr9zHnfe03Eg

July 2017

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:DE, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV, etc, . If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per discussion at here

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)[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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

@Yunshui: If there is no factual violation of any WP policy, and also no evidence showing any violation provided by the blocking admin, how am I supposed to understand an indefinite block - how would any editor be able to understand an indefinite block then? I can imagine how much effort it takes for an uninvolved admin to read into the particular matter; but it simply is a fact that no actual reason is given for my block other than a punishment WP:NOPUNISH; which is not acceptable and no reason to block someone let alone indefinitely. This is a serious question. That is what I am asking - as until now no reason for my block was given other than a couple of phrases about how I somehow would not fit in and should literally get another "hobby", as if I would be some kind of newly registred unexperienced user. I fully worked according to WP standards, sticked to dispute resolution guidelines as well as to all forms of WP:Civility, I always assumed good faith initially in any edit by anyone. Now I get a notice for an ANI by a user I never had any encounter with before who appears to dislike me for a revert I did on his edit- I then explain the case on the respective ANI and without any admin having engaged in the ANI even after couple of days have passed . Then out of a sudden I am indifenitely blocked - no reason given other than I would not fit it. This is everything but honest and correct application of Wikipedia block policy - and I firmly believe that any user being blocked, especially indefinite, has a right to get detailed explanation for what factual serious reasons/violations. And in case such policy violations cannot be showed then a block has to be lifted.--Joobo (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you bother to actually read the block notice, it give you an alphabet soup worth of problems noted by others: WP:DE, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE and WP:POV. The short of it is that the community feels your editing is disruptive to the creation of an encyclopedia. You were blocked because there is a consensus that supports this, as well as direct evidence. You were linked to two discussions. Your insistence in linking WP:NOPUNISH makes me wonder if you are WP:TROLLING or simply lack the competence to edit here. If you are wanting me to link to each and every instance where your edits are problematic and explain each one, you are out of luck, as policy doesn't require that. You should be intelligent enough to read the two discussions and glean the necessary information from them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: Please provide exact and clear edit diffs when, where and how I violated the mentioned policies and guidelines! You say you do not need to, well how advantageous is that for you then - that you apparently simply do not need to. There are no violations! That is why until now not a single one let alone massive persistent one, have been provided. It was not done at the ANI by any other admin or you, It was not done here in the block and also not now by you. Show where I blatantly pushed POV, where I harassed someone, where I stalked anyone, where I threatened someone, where did I vandalized, where did I disrupted, where did I violated copyright, where did I do original research, et cetera? Show actual evidence instead of this vacuous non-saying of "the community feels your editing is disruptive to the creation of an encyclopedia". Who is even "the community" you and two, three other users?= You can claim POV, you can claim disruptive editing etc. But where? when? Claiming and accusing is one thing but then it is on the accuser to actually give proof for that. Not you have done it and also not the two particular users at the ANI when even it was lied about edits I did some years ago lying without hesitation that I would have not included a source [1], eventhough in the edit diff provided([2]) it is shown crystal clear that I did(!) included a correct source - the named source with the "ref name="SZ" ". No word by you or anyone on that, just nothing. If you would give evidence, no problem, but neither you nor anyone else does until now. --Joobo (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Mathmensch (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this, and by Wikipedia's own guidelines(WP:BLPREMOVE) was obliged to revert this BLP violation as it was included just one single and at least to some extend questionable source! - I gave detailed explanation to that on the article`s talk page where you did not even tried to engage in, but just repeated "source" over and over again. Where were you even looking for a civil discussion with me regarding the source and the source's content itself? Nowhere. Instead you started to check my edits, commented on something completely unrelated on my talk page which was weeks old and calling it "monarchy" like. You then accused me instantly for "whitewashing" and "POV" giving blatant fallacious edit diffs on the ANI you initiated against me and you gave baseless claims of behaving in a "non-neutral manner" ([3]) — These edit diffs as well as acccusations were somehow utterly "condoned" by the admins, eventhough according to Wikipedia's own policy — accusations, without giving evidence, constitutes a clear personal attack. I have neither any personal positive or negative affection for the BLP nor is there any proof in the form of edit diffs given that I in any way violated Wikipedia policy. You, same as the admin Dennis Brown, have both yet to come to give simple evidence I violated any Wikipedia policies. You have not even said sorry for lying in the ANI about the false edit diffs you provided.--Joobo (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Hello @JFG: I am pinging you for a question of advise. We have not had to do too many things with each other on this platform, yet Ive seen you on some articles and also you were the RfC-closing user at the AfD-Party talkpage. You also gave your view when the ANI some time ago was ongoing and me and others were accused of editing against WP guidelines, albeit the ANI was initiated against another user who ignored the RfC outcome — however in the end the accuser was more reprimanded than me/us, as it became obvious that I and some other users have not done any actual policy violatin. Now, I was blocked as you might see yet for a similar but way smaller situation as back then, which seems somewhat really peculiar to me. Would you have any advise what the best action would be for now: starting another formal unblock appeal, getting somehow other admins to review this situation and story behind like getting a block review, or simply let it be as it is-accept this possible WP-policy violating block and just like the other user who was invlolved in the first ANI — getting off this whole thing called Wikipedia as you only can lose if certain users deliberately aim to harm you persistently. Any advice? Thanks a lot in advance.--Joobo (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joobo. Indeed we have not interacted much, so I was surprised by your ping, but I'm happy to provide some perspective. I was also surprised to see that you had been indef-blocked, so I checked some of the threads that were referenced, including the recent incidents and the ones that got you blocked back in early 2016. In a nutshell, like every fallible human editor here, you may be right or wrong on the merits of each content dispute; this is to be expected especially when editing potentially controversial articles such as politics or terrorism. When content disputes do not get resolved promptly via amicable discussion, the WP environment provides several venues to move forward: RfC, BLP/N, DR/N, Mediation, Third opinion, etc. It seems to me that in several cases, you tend to skip those steps and delve into edit wars, personal attacks or general battleground behaviour. This kind of attitude apparently got under the skin of some of the people you interacted with, and justifies the admin decision to block you. Sure, other editors do this too, but whataboutism is frowned upon.
As an example, when Jytdog started editing German nationalism to support his POV that had been contested at Alternative für Deutschland, you took it very harshly, and ultimately the thread you launched against him at ANI got you in trouble instead, the famous boomerang effect. Doesn't matter whether Jytdog was right or wrong, and in the end the RfC he opened was closed with unanimous opposition to his POV, so that the party was labeled just "Nationalist" instead of "German nationalist". Your POV was vindicated by the community and that settled the issue. Unfortunately, by that time you had digged your own grave already. That is unfortunate because you have also proven able to contribute positively to the collective encyclopedic goal. Even when you find other editors to be aggressive or biased, that does not excuse your delving into the same travails. Hint: we all are biased, whether we realize it or not. Confronting other biased editors should enrich each of us, and ultimately enrich the encyclopedia for the benefit of readers. In the end, when the backstage battles were settled, both articles had been improved, and that's what counts for our readers.
If you are pondering a future return to editing, you should start by acknowledging your own faults and avoid nondescript rants about unfair sanctions or pointing out how others have wronged you. You should not even assert that fellow editors are "wrong" while you are "right", even if you sincerely think so. Every comment we make should be directed at the contents of edits, not at the people writing such contents. It may be hard, and I understand that some interactions may turn personal, but criticizing editors based on their apparent or explicit bias will not get you anywhere closer to solving the content disputes that you find legitimate. Always return to the content, remain civil, insist on neutrality and balance, add statements that are well-supported by reliable sources and then you can insist that other editors follow the same rules.
Finally, I would add: be prepared to be patient, there is no deadline. Look at the perennial dispute about the titling strategy for New York, New York (state) and New York City, which took 15+ years to be resolved. Countless editors have lost patience over the issue, but it was ultimately settled a couple days ago after a community debate process that started in July 2016. Sure, it was frustrating, nerve-wracking, time-wasting, but in the end it so happened that editors with widely different views on this admittedly trivial issue managed to reach consensus for the greater good of the encyclopedia. This is what I love in this project, and helps me withstand the "bad days" that are sometimes testing the thickness of my skin.
Hope this helps. I am convinced that under the right circumstances, you will always be welcome to the project again: Wikipedians are more tolerant and open-minded than you might think… — JFG talk 16:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Thank you a lot for your plenty of words. It is true, particularly in the beginning of me editing I took some situations clearly too personal and too intense. I was blocked after that for good reason and till today fully support this block decision back then. I forgot about this project after that for a long time, and then pushed myself back to seriously understand what this is all about and how to truly contribute to it. That is why I was so relieved to get the unblock appeal approved and being able to edit and contribute a lot to a whole range of issues (I do not even know how many hours I invested just by searching on Commons for adequate quality rated images for all kinds of WP articles or for sources in article sections that were indire need of some) and also engaged with many users - good, bad, harsh, easy, everything in its whole diversity.
Sadly there was this, now already some months old, unfortunate clash at the article of the AfD party about truly one single word, or to be absolutely precise, half of a word, that evolved into a quarrel of extraordinary magnitude. That was settled in the ANI (You can argue about the outcome; as one could have further critizised the decision of the the reviewing administration to not have reprimanded/sanctioned the RfC ignoring user any further — however to me it was settled and no further major blatant dispute evolved from then on or massive editing on the respected pages).
Now, what I simply cannot grasp is the reasoning for why I was blocked this time, as different from the first time, where clear and obvious violations by me also in form of edit diffs were given, now simply nothing is provided at all - I was/am accused to have violated a whole range of policies and guidelines - yet no proof of that was shown to that in any form on any page. I even can understand the blocking admin, that as he probably is very busy in this project, simply and finally wants this to be quiet and then blocking is a simple and effective way to reach that quickly. However, not only was this time the dispute significantly smaller compared to the former ANI, where I have not been blocked, and also the whole circumstance and situation itself was more clear as back then. Now it was a simple content dispute which should have been solved in a common and civil manner on the talk page which I tried to by initiating and engaging there. However an ANI was started out of the blue, accusations without grounds were thrown to me - and voilà - I was blocked just like that. No admin has engaged either in the respetive article, the article talkp page or at the ANI, just until the end when it was stated I was blocked.
To me it feels - in contrast to the first block, where I without a doubt did violated WP policies — now just so wrong. No factual reasoning was provided this time as mere accusations, and in some cases even insinuations, were stated, but no "factual" reasons and pieces of evidence in form from clear edit diffs were given. Accusations HAVE to be proven, which simply did not happen. I do not like to digress, but many times, as pointed out here and elsewhere, misleading and even clearly fallacious edit diffs were thrown around instead. Maybe you can imagine that I simply do not know how I should asses this whole situation right now - Should I get off this whole thing, like the other user from the first ANI who was eventually sick of the whole quarrel and even asked voluntarily to be blocked indeff- Or should I, to phrase it drastically but actually also just accurately, keep fighting for a review on this particular, at least somewhat (maybe even highgly) questionable indefinite block - with good outlooks to be unblocked as there is not much, if even at all, evidence for the accusations given, in case of a completely uninvolved admin is really taking some time to read through this whole thing. Sorry for the last complicated sentence, and thank you in advance for reading and your time.--Joobo (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joobo&oldid=791676245"