User talk:JoeyCoffin

March 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added anything untrue or inappropriate....and ive even given sources....I can't control what the other editors do....but i'm going to make sure important information sticks

please don't just block me for months because you don't know what to do JoeyCoffin (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are expected to gain consensus on the article talkpage for your edits first, and to follow the sources closely, not to place your own spin on the sources or to introduce tangents. Other editors have pointed out that the article is not about the perpetrator. Please answer the objections of other editors first on the talkpage, and remember that it is considered to be a bad idea to write about murderers in approving or fanboy tones. If you contrite to edit war, the next stop will be WP:AN3. Threatening to edit-war until you get your way is a quick route to an indefinite blockl. Acroterion (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of murder, obviously.

but because of his autobiography, this man can objectively be described as the founding father of the modern incel movement, and has been described as such by reliable sources, one of which I quoted directly

i'll let the talkpage know what i'm doing if it makes you happy JoeyCoffin (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Participation on the talkpage is obligatory, not something to pacify me. You are expected to gain consensus if your edits are rejected, not to edit-war. Please address the concerns of other editors about tangents. Acroterion (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2014 Isla Vista killings. Nick Levine (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalize"? Nick, if you don't even understand what you are reading, then don't get involved. I mentioned an important objective fact JoeyCoffin (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WHile I wouldn't call it vandalism, it is a continuation of your insistence on aggrandizing the perpetrator. It is disruptive and frankly creepy. Stop and find consensus. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

his autobiography is the foundation of the modern incel movement, (which is almost completely nonviolent)

I just hope to get that extremely important fact mentioned, without condoning anything bad....love you, Acroteriony <3 JoeyCoffin (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JoeyCoffin reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

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 ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, I am here to build an encyclopedia, by adding information that is true, important, and sourced, just as I did.

Acroterion may have gone taddling because he doesn't understand the information....and he doesn't like what he doesn't understand.... i'm really not sure why he is an authority on this article anyway

no need to block me indefinitely....if you don't know what to do, then just don't do anything JoeyCoffin (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave adequate reasons I should be unblocked, I only added true and relevant and sourced information, and I never edit warred by reverting 3 times within 24 hours

The admin who declined my request to be unblocked never gave a real reason for doing so, probably because he didn't have one

If necessary, when unblocked, I'll refrain from editing for a while JoeyCoffin (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here JoeyCoffin (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. "Your reason here" is not a reason to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 16 March 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.

I already gave adequate reasons I should be unblocked, I only added true and relevant and sourced information, and I never edit warred by reverting 3 times within 24 hours

The admin who declined my request to be unblocked...."Yamla".... never gave a real reason for doing so....i'd like my case to be reviewed by a more competent admin than Yamla.

If necessary, when unblocked, I'll refrain from editing for a while JoeyCoffin (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here JoeyCoffin (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:13, 15 March 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.

I was here to build an encyclopedia, by adding information that is true, important, and sourced, just as I did.

I hadn't even pressed the revert button 3 times within 24 hours, so I was hardly edit warring JoeyCoffin (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I already gave adequate reasons I shouldn't be blocked, I only added true and relevant and sourced information, and I never edit warred by reverting 3 times within 24 hours.

The admin involved reported me because he didn't like the information, not because it violated wikipedia's guidelines.

If necessary, when unblocked, I'll refrain from editing at all for a while

JoeyCoffin (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is broader than violating 3RR. 3RR is a bright line to cross, but one can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts(as stated at WP:EW). In any event, you are blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with what the blocking admin thinks of your edits. I might suggest that it would help if you agreed to abandon editing about the event you were editing about and tell us what topics you will edit about instead. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 16 March 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.

I WAS here to build an encyclopedia, by adding information that is true, important, and sourced, just as I did.

Please place new posts at the bottom for proper flow. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I WAS here to build an encyclopedia. I added information that was true, and important, and even made sure I had the right sources to back it up. JoeyCoffin (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is just trolling. I've don't think the encyclopedia would gain anything by unblocked you. Talk page access revoked. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 16 March 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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #70891[edit]

is closed. Unsurprisingly. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]