User talk:Gkoogz

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

May 2022[edit]

Stop icon
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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned not to attack other editors as "vandals." Doubling down at ANI is not a satisfactory response, and I see no evidence that a time-limited block will change your approach to WIkipedia. I've blocked you indefinitely. Any successful unblock request must address your conduct constructively. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2022 (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).

Gkoogz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I want you to please look at the page for pol in dispute after my edit (but before the reversions). Just read it casually as a user would. That is a more meaningful, well contructed, fair and easy to follow page. I added that the site is offensive and moderated the tone so I am not seeing a good rationale for the ban. I am a young user and not an expert in the rules of wikipedia but my contributions were absolutely in good faith. I simply ask that some admin in the spirit of growth unbans me because my contributions would have made the page better. And if others disagree or if something wasn't perfectly cited, I took it straight to the talk page. Thank you for reconsidering. Gkoogz (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block is entirely appropriate and nothing in this request shows you understand the numerous problems with your editing. I'm also deeply concerned that you appear to espouse the racist Great Replacement theory here; you'll need to specifically address that if there's any clarification that would explain that. Yamla (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2022 (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.

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).

Gkoogz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have now thoroughly reviewed the unblock procedures and I am ready to appeal. I acknowledge that I lost a consensus agreement and that other users had a concern with citations regarding one or two assertions, which is fair. I am absolutely open to further edits or reductions to get my edits up to Wikipedia's standards and I am eager to participate productively. My contributions to the page seems to be quite reasonable and in line with other information available on the site so on that basis my block seems unfair. I engaged meaninfully and in good faith on the talk page to try to come to some conclusion and I stopped before 3RR or edit war, which I clearly acknowledged on the talk page. And regarding the Great Replacement, I am not "espousing" anything, it is not theoretical or a conspiracy that the proportion of White Americans has dropped by 30% in 50 years and that many people are concerned about that. I really don't want to cause offense to anyone, but in my opinion it is not appropriate to call it a conspiracy theory on that basis. Gkoogz (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not us calling it a conspiracy theory, it is independent reliable sources doing so. Statistics are what they are, but that is not hard evidence of a deliberate effort to exterminate or merely reduce the population of white people. I oppose anyone unblocking you unless you agree to a topic ban from racial issues. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2022 (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.

Shifting demographics are facts, but they are not evidence of a deliberate conspiracy. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]