Note to self: Saw that screenshots from GPL-licensed simulator Flightgear can be used in Wikipedia and even offers photorealistic views from orbit: SpaceShuttle-orbit-sunrise-FlightGearIsenberg (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing warnings won't make them cease to exist. You have been blocked indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing, such as frequent assumptions of bad faith (particularly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographical centre of Earth), original research, addition of unsourced or improperly cited material, violations of Wikipedia's copyright rules, use of talkpages for inappropriate discussion, and vandalism (as here. If you wonder where the editing problems I have mentioned are, please see all the specific warnings that you have removed from this page without responding. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk19:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Hi @Bishonen, the page you refer to was deleted 40 days ago and my last reply in the talk page of it was 30 days ago. The "violation of Wikipedia's copright rules" as you state it was about one single screenshot from Google Earth which was quickly fixed. I don't see any reason why that should be considered violation of copyright. This page here is my personal page and I can delete whatever I like here. The topic of faith you brought in. I only stated the fact that a group of admins discussed on a less public forum and decided that the page you referred to first needed to be deleted. Then they deleted it without following the correct process. Isenberg (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2025 (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).
Allegation 1, the resistance against deletion of the page Geographical centre of Earth: That deletion was started and discussed in the background hidden from the public by a group of admins in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_109#h-Geographical_centre_of_Earth-20250728110800 without notification in the page's talk page. Then those admins removed large part of the content and only afterwards on the now fragmented unreadable page they started the official deletion procedure where barely anyone from the public participated. The page existed since 2012 and received only minor updates the recent 2 years and requests from the public existed to keep it. The admins' discussion contained derogative statements and already the first discussion sentence named one of the cited sources, an Astronomer Royal for Scotland, as "useless". My pointing out of the admins' unusual behavior in the process and my quick replies were then apparently misinterpreted as violating the rules. Allegation 2, the removal of a judging word from the first paragraph about an archeological related Netflix series: I noticed that judging word which was placed there with reference to a politically biased author claiming that the Netflix series author is supporting far right wing activists. That's only a personal minority opinion not acceptable for an introduction paragraph. Netflix wouldn't air a series with such a background in their top rotation. Allegation 3, critical copyright violation: That was a single screenshot of Google Earth which themselves state that few images are allowed for articles. But as it turned out I overlooked the potential commercial reuse the wikipedia license allows which contradicts Google Earth's terms of use. That was quickly fixed and is not acceptable for banning someone. Allegation 4, ignoring of warnings: That's not true, I read them, but if someones just writes an unspecific "please stop" as first warning which alleges to stop writing in wikipedia at all, I have to ignore that. Then after that unspecific first warning immediately the final warning was stated, which I also read, but as that was about allegation 2, a single word and my edit was already reverted by an admin. Then without any other problematic edit, I was just banned after that final warning.
Decline reason:
You were blocked, in part, for failing to assume good faith of other editors; this unblock request is dripping with assumptions of bad faith. Furthermore, you have hardly been blocked for a day, and you are already evading your block by logging out to edit as an IP. I'm going to make this a WP:CUBLOCK. GirthSummit (blether)03:49, 30 September 2025 (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).
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.
Isenberg, this is a checkuser block, meaning that technical data was used by an admin who has been granted special tools to investigate whether you edited while logged out after being blocked. And while you are allowed to delete most things from this page, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines still cover this page, and one thing you are explicitly not allowed to remove is declined unblock requests, per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. I have restored the improperly removed unblock request, and if it is removed again, that's a common reason for an admin to remove talk page access. That's not something you want because it makes an unblock far less likely.
You are also not "blocked for life." Indefinite just means that there's no set time period for when you will be unblocked. You can be unblocked at any time, if an administrator feels that they can trust that the various behaviors will not be repeated (evading a block, copyright violation, persistent disruptive editing, assumption of bad faith, adding unsourced material, inappropriate use of talk pages, vandalism, and adding original research). It will have to be an admin with the elevated checkuser authority, since your case now requires review of technical data that not all admins have access to. Just make sure to address all these issues, and even if you are not unblocked now, it doesn't mean that you can't get unblocked in the future after time has passed. I wish you good fortune in your unblock. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see some admin today changed the official block reason now from "Editing while logged out in order to mislead" to "loutsocking to evade block" and at the same time someone is threatening me with increasing the punishment (You are now one step away from ...). That is just stating facts which happened today. Isenberg (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> technical data was used by an admin who has been granted special tools to investigate whether you edited while logged out after being blocked.
Confirmed WP:LOUTSOCK. You are now one step away from a WP:3X ban by the community, and much closer to that than you are to being unblocked. Yamla (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)