User talk:Jbolden1517/Archive4v2

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making real-world threats to other editors. This is completely unacceptable. Note that indefinite does not mean infinite - you may be unblocked if you withdraw such threats and confirm that you will not repeat such behaviour. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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).

Jbolden1517 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

not an IRL threat. I never threatened anything. An infinite block for a first offense on an editor with 4 years?

Decline reason:

Looks like threats to me and at least two other admins, so the indefinite (not infinite) block is appropriate. Since you have not addressed the reason for the block, this request is declined. You may want to read the instructions before making another request. —DoRD (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2010 (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.

(edit conflict) The linked edit is a clear threat to do harm to that editor, not on Wikipedia, but in real life. It was intensely disturbing. I'd support an indefinite block anyway, but the fact that your unblock indicates that you don't see any problem with that makes it even more important that you not continue editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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).

Jbolden1517 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

withdraw threat

Decline reason:

Not convincing, especially given that you did not even bother to compose a full sentence.  Sandstein  13:20, 28 March 2010 (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.

I have undone your blanking of this talk page insofar as the declined unblock requests above, including FisherQueen's review, are concerned. You may not remove these as long as you are blocked. Should you do it again, you will lose the ability to edit this page.  Sandstein  16:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You might also note that legal threats such as this aren't going to help your case. —DoRD (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If this user is no longer requesting unblock, then I don't object to the blanking of previous requests. They should remain visible if he's making further unblock requests, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be unblocked for several reasons:

1. This block has turned into an effective ban. I believe I'm entitled to an appeal before arbcom before such a ban is put into effect.
2. I've indicated my intention is to peacefully shut this account down which is not a disruptive edit. In fact I'd be willing to be unblocked for a short time and then reblocked.
3. Given a four year editing history on over a hundred articles and many thousands of constructive edits with no previous block, bans, RFCs.... I think there is no valid reason to believe that even if I were to return to editing it would be disruptive. If one of the block admins disagrees I again think that proper dispute resolution via an RFC or arbcom is an appropriate forum not a unilateral act.
4. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive but preventative this one is clearly punitive. WP:BP requires persistence and I did not persist in the IRL.
5. A charge of sock-puppetting was made which has evidentially been withdrawn. Given that this was disproven by check user yet the effect of it has been a change to my front page. I'm now being punished for something no one even thinks I did.
6. This block happened during a mediation.
7. I attempted to meet both requirements as per the template

jbolden1517^Talk 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've declined your unblock request (by removing the category from the page), as you have not addressed the reason for your block. Before any unblock request can be considered, you must address the edits you made at User talk:Eugeneacurry. TNXMan 20:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to address them and it was found not sufficient and then "unconvincing". I have already indicated that I have no intention of making any more IRL comments. I'd like to appeal to arbcom at this point please. 98.110.127.114 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)