User talk:Joseph4real1995

Blocked indefinitely

I have re-blocked you because since being unblocked you have done nothing but nominate articles created by Reading Beans for deletion. Reading Beans filed the sock puppet investigation that led to your first block, so this appears retaliatory. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight why are you so specific about Reading beans whereas there are other edits I made on other articles? This is not retaliatory as you claimed but passing editor's work through the lens of scrutiny as set by Wikipedia. However, I have put a stop to making contributions on people's work as I am currently focused on mine, but once in a while I will access new published articles. You can undo the block, if such report arises again, you have my word to block me. Thank you! Joseph4real1995 (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight It's over 24hours since I sent the last message, but I'm surprised you ignored me. I'm still reaching out to you to solicit that you consider my apology and grant me amnesty so I can publish some work. I have promised you that if any report arises again, you can block me. Thank you! Joseph4real1995 (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to unblock you. You can make an unblock request using the {{unblock}} template as you did before. PhilKnight (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for unblock

@PhilKnight and other admins,

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).

Joseph4real1995 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked because I norminated a page of an editor for deletion. This editor had filled SpI against me which was undone afterwards. His page I believe didn't meet Wikipedia notability requirement was nominated by me, and I was surprised to be blocked again because he tendered a report that I was retaliating. Well, I accept whatever blame and apologise for my wrongs with the promise that it will not happen again. Thank you!

Decline reason:

I'm going to try to be as kind as possible here, on the offchance that this really is a series of errors.

First of all your contention that This editor had filled SpI against me which was undone afterwards. is mistaken. Such investigations are routinely archived after a result has become clear. It is still there a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph4real1995/Archive. The conclusion was that you were indeed operating both accounts in violation of Wikipedia policy. This alone is not by any means a permanent dealbreaker, it isn't all that uncommon for newer users to not understand that this sort of use of multiple accounts simply is not tolerated here.

That brings us to your contention that you deletion nomination, and another failed attempt at a deletion nomination, were not retaliatory. They certainly look that way to a previously uninvolved third party. You got off pretty light, you were only blocked for one day. One would hope and expect that this was simply a case of a lesson having been learned and you would just move on, but instead you began trying to get content crested by the person who noticed you were socking deleted. I find it very hard to believe you were just looking for content that might be subpar and the first two things you found were written by the person who opened the investigation against you.

I think you probably could get unblocked if you address these points directly and honestly, but a third chance is a little harder to get than a second one and at this time I do not find this unblock request sufficient. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:51, 4 January 2025 (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.

Beeblebrox Thanks for your response. Your analysis is correct. I accept the fact that what I did was wrong, and I promise not to make the same mistake. Joseph4real1995 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)