User talk:Iyo-farm

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sorry, I don't live on the internet, let alone the Wikipedia, and so I've turned up late & am unable to defend myself against this premature banning & extreme straw manning of my position (or 45 word submission to the Holocaust article). Therefore, out of fairness, I'd like to do so now. Thanks. Iyo-farm (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are free to contest your block. WP:GAB explains how to do so. Yamla (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2021 (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.

If an unblock request is made, please note that Iyo-farm removed the note I left here. There was consensus at ANI that Iyo-farm not be unblocked without a topic ban from animal rights and the Holocaust. Iyo-farm, if you decide to request an unblock, do not remove this note to the reviewing admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: I removed an unblock request posted by an IP editor here. If that was a joe job, then requiring Iyo-farm to sign in will protect their reputation. If that was actually Iyo-farm, then be aware if you repost such an obviously unactionable unblock request with your account, I will remove talk page access, as it will then be clear you plan to waste everyone's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of organisation

BTW, part of this edit is wrong, [1]. Mass-Observation should be capitalised as per the organization's name, & linked to its page. (Originally Mass-Observation, then Mass Observation). Thanks. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Investigated, confirmed, and fixed. Thanks for your observation, but you could have edited this yourself if you had your editing privileges back. If you wish to continue to edit here, your next step is to appeal your block. Good luck.

P.S. I've taken the liberty of adding a section title above, in order to separate this discussion from the unrelated unblock review above. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block was premature & far too severe, & reasons given were bullshit. Completely disingenuous to the point of outright dishonesty. --Iyo-farm (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not for everyone. It requires a certain level of competence in consensus building that some people lack. You do not understand when it is necessary to drop the stick. Based on your edits so far, you do not seem to be a good fit for Wikipedia. I suggest you redirect your energies elsewhere. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2021 (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.

Like them or not, those are the facts.

You know, there's times when "the community" (which really just mean a handful of editors owning a page & a certain culture within the admins), needs to look at itself, its irrationality &, as stated, its disingenuousness. Tendencies that it especially does not like to have pointed out.

As with the correction above, or the edit to Sandra Hüller's page [2], they'd rather have incorrect, unfactual & misleading information - or none, or to lose an editor - than tolerate an editor who won't suck their dicks.

Or have to discuss the actual issues that brought about conflicts or bans in the first place.

Indeed, they'd rather invest their time playing Whac-A-Mole with editors who won't than actually start new pages, sort out old ones, or do real work.

It was in the first place, and remains, just WP:GAMING so, no, I'm not sucking dick to be allowed to work for free & am happy to waste your time & energy pointing out the irrationalities instead. Your decision. (Bearing in mind, all of this was all about just 45 well referenced & relevant words) --Iyo-farm (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk page access removed. This has become a timesink: current behavior demonstrates no chance of a productive unblock request in the near future. Also, noting block evasion with IP edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]