User talk:Geomoto

May 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:58, 23 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal this block and clarify that I have been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of JoelMLN. I contributed in good faith, particularly to articles related to Melilla, investing many hours with the sole intention of improving Wikipedia. It is extremely discouraging to see all my work deleted without proper evaluation. I respectfully ask when the block on editing articles about Melilla will be lifted, and I also request the restoration of the deleted pages I created or improved. :Blocking editors and removing their good-faith contributions without clear justification only discourages collaboration and causes valuable contributors to leave the project. I believe Wikipedia benefits from open and fair contributions, and I would appreciate the chance to continue helping in a constructive way. Thank you. Geomoto (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to JerryWild and therefore to JoelMLN. Also, I found your new account, AmegoTeneSegarro. I'll go block that one now, too. Yamla (talk) 20:04, 23 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to make it clear that I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of JoelMLN. I have contributed to Wikipedia in good faith, particularly on articles related to Melilla, with the aim of improving the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, all of my work has been deleted without a fair assessment.

This experience has left me feeling deeply disillusioned with the project. I no longer feel welcome or respected as a contributor, and as a result, I have decided to leave Wikipedia permanently. I will also be informing relevant higher authorities within the Wikimedia Foundation about the deletion of my good-faith contributions so that appropriate actions can be taken. I truly hope this leads to reflection on how valuable volunteer editors are treated. Geomoto (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not really an unblock request. I have confirmed the connection to JerryWild, and the technical evidence is clear. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 23 May 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.

Geomoto (talk) 20:10, 23 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Ponyo, Yamla, and PhilKnight,

I openly acknowledge that I am Joel. For over a decade, I have contributed consistently, voluntarily, and selflessly to Wikipedia. My sole aim has been to enrich this project with useful, rigorous, and well-referenced content. I have created or improved more than 30,000 articles in key areas such as medicine, law, history, economics, art, science, politics, international relations, and local topics like the city of Melilla.

Many of these contributions required hours, days, or weeks of research, writing, structuring, and review, always within the framework of Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability, neutrality, and encyclopedic relevance. I often worked on topics that were completely absent or in a deplorable state on Wikipedia. Deleting all this work without proper content review, solely because of association with a username, is a profoundly unjust act that contradicts the very spirit of the project and undermines the collective effort that supports the encyclopedia.

I understand that Wikipedia needs clear and firm policies against abuse, and that sockpuppetry and block evasion can be serious issues requiring disciplinary measures. However, I believe that the mechanical, disproportionate, and at times arbitrary use of these policies, without an objective and thorough evaluation of the content, constitutes a form of institutional vandalism that undermines Wikipedia’s integrity and purpose. This rigidity and lack of flexibility do not protect the encyclopedia; they impoverish it by sacrificing valuable content for bureaucratic or personal reasons.

A free and collaborative encyclopedia must evaluate content based on quality, accuracy, and contribution to knowledge—not based on the contributor’s name or personal history. What is the use of a project that prides itself on openness and collaboration if it systematically discards honest and well-documented work without reading it, simply because it comes from someone previously blocked? This approach creates an atmosphere of mistrust and discouragement that drives away valuable contributors and diminishes the encyclopedia’s development.

Moreover, administrative persecution and wholesale deletion of contributions set a dangerous precedent that may deter other volunteers from investing their time and effort into improving Wikipedia. The community and the public suffer when knowledge is reduced to stubs or incomplete articles merely to avoid the so-called “contamination” of certain usernames. The ultimate goal should always be the quality and scope of content, not who authored it.

Rather than blocking and deleting indiscriminately, wouldn’t it be more constructive to establish channels for dialogue, review, and improvement of controversial contributions? Wouldn’t it be more productive to encourage reconciliation and collaborative correction instead of applying mass punishments that penalize commitment and effort? The project must find a balance between protecting itself from genuine abuse and avoiding excesses that unfairly affect those who have contributed in good faith.

I have contacted higher levels within the Wikimedia Foundation to formally raise my complaint about the treatment I have received. I hope these authorities will impartially and thoroughly review the distorted use of administrative tools that, in my case and surely in others, has caused the loss of thousands of hours of valuable work for reasons that seem more bureaucratic or personal than based on fair and objective evaluation.

Having realized that neither I nor my work are welcome or valued in this project, I request that all my contributions be removed or, alternatively, marked as unverifiable or subject to review, as I no longer trust a system that disrespects honest collaboration and prioritizes persecution and exclusion over quality and openness. While legally the content is published under a free license, what I ask for is moral and symbolic recognition: if my texts are not worthy to remain, neither should fragments, ideas, or improvements derived from them.

I leave with deep disappointment, but also with pride in having contributed with rigor, honesty, and passion. My intention has always been, and will continue to be, to contribute to global knowledge despite the obstacles. I hope that someday Wikipedia will reclaim its original focus: that of a truly open encyclopedia of knowledge, where contributions are valued for their content and doors are not closed on people who want to help build a free, quality resource.Geomoto (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. There are no "higher levels" to contact so I'm not sure who you contacted, but it's doubtful they will interfere here. This is your "channel of dialogue". If you want your edits to stand, you need to make them when you are not blocked. What is the point of rules if they can be openly flouted without consequence? You need to return to your original account and request to be unblocked there. If you find your treatment by the checkusers unsatisfactory, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee- though I see nothing wrong with what they have done. I will add you are not "previously blocked", you are currently blocked. Big difference. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 24 May 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.

Dear Ponyo, Yamla, PhilKnight, and 331dot,

I am unable to log in to my original account, JoelMLN, which was blocked last year. Since then, every attempt to establish dialogue or appeal the block has been met with a bureaucratic wall where simply being blocked automatically invalidates any argument—no matter how reasonable—and disqualifies any contribution, no matter how valuable.

I understand that as experienced administrators, you have the difficult task of enforcing community rules. But I am also convinced that, at some point, each of you has encountered situations where the letter of the policy did not match the complexity of the case. What is being done here—to me and to my contributions—is not simply rule enforcement. It is a form of institutional vandalism masked by procedure, destroying encyclopedic content without genuine evaluation, solely because of who wrote it.

Frankly, I am past caring whether this message conforms to formal expectations. What truly concerns me is that high-quality, well-sourced, and fully developed articles have been erased or reverted to skeletal stubs—not because they were flawed, but because of my username. That is not protecting Wikipedia. That is weakening it.

The block evasion policy certainly has its place. No one disputes the need to stop persistent vandalism or harassment. But what happened here is not that. What happened here is a blanket punishment of content—a retroactive purge carried out with such rigid automation that technical enforcement becomes indistinguishable from censorship.

Some may argue that such actions are necessary to preserve the integrity of the system. But what is the value of a perfectly enforced system if it sacrifices thousands of hours of good-faith work in the name of procedural purity? What good is a technically fortified Wikipedia if it becomes increasingly hollow, fragmented, and hostile to anyone who wants to contribute based on knowledge rather than internal politics?

I'm not asking for leniency. I'm not even asking to be unblocked. I’m simply asking you to acknowledge—if not publicly, then at least to yourselves—that reverting a complete and sourced article to a one-paragraph stub without reviewing the content, simply because it was written by a blocked user, is a form of vandalism, regardless of who performs it. If an anonymous editor did that, they would be warned or blocked. When an admin does it under the cover of policy, it is called "maintenance."

As long as this policy remains in place in its current form—prioritizing rigid enforcement over critical evaluation—I do not feel safe investing weeks of research, writing, and sourcing, only for that work to be discarded without a second thought. Therefore, I am stepping away permanently from contributing to Wikipedia. I can no longer support or participate in a project where honest intellectual effort can be so easily erased, not because of content, but because of identity.

Sincerely, Geomoto (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not asking to be unblocked, and are leaving permanently, (doubtful as you've evaded before) then there is nothing more to do here. You only have access to this page to request to be unblocked.

Any user is free to remove edits made by a blocked user, not just admins. No, it's not vandalism, not in the slightest. I get that you think so because they're your edits. Bank robbers are not permitted to break out of jail to perform community service or help little old ladies across the street even though performing community service and helping little old ladies are good things. They need to wait until they are out of jail or at least ask permission. You haven't done that. You took the easy way out and evaded your block. If you want your good edits to stand, you need to get unblocked first. That's not hard to understand. This isn't "rigid enforcement", it's common sense that allowing people to evade rules and the consequences of violating them is damaging to the project.

You wouldn't even need to make your edits fresh again, once unblocked, you could just restore them. You initially lied and said you weren't Joel instead of saying "I can't access my account to ask to be unblocked". So your rants here ring hollow.

Again, feel free to appeal to ArbCom if you feel unfairly treated. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I understand how the policies work and the logic typically used to justify their enforcement. I’m not questioning the existence of the policy, but rather its rigid and punitive application—even when it targets contributions that offer real value to the encyclopedia.

Your analogy about a "bank robber" misses a central point: the difference between the person and the contribution. Wikipedia’s primary mission is not to punish, but to build a reliable base of knowledge. Automatically rejecting useful content because of who wrote it—without any genuine review—is a loss for the project itself, not just for the editor.

If a reverted article contains verifiable, well-written, well-sourced material, it should be judged on its content, not its author. To discard it simply because it came from a blocked user is to judge the contributor rather than the contribution. And that, in any intellectual or editorial tradition, is a mistake.

You’re right that I could have requested an unblock instead of evading. And it’s true that I didn’t approach it in the proper way at first. But if an editor has shown, through concrete effort, the ability and willingness to contribute positively—despite past mistakes—shouldn’t that be something Wikipedia seeks to encourage?

I didn’t write this as a “rant.” I wrote it because I believe the system, as it currently functions, sometimes betrays its own values: consensus, verifiability, and openness. Maybe to you my words sound hollow, but I hope at least someone reading them can see the deeper concern—that we are losing not just contributors, but the knowledge they bring, all in the name of procedural orthodoxy.

One final question, and I ask it sincerely:

Do you really believe it is “so simple” to restore thousands of articles and contributions once unblocked—many of which have since been edited by others, merged, mass-reverted, or outright deleted without trace?

Some of those articles I no longer clearly remember, and others are no longer solely mine—they were enriched over time by multiple editors. How is a formerly blocked editor supposed to recover all that work efficiently and fairly when it’s no longer even clear what was removed due to block evasion and what was altered for other reasons?

Reducing all of this to a technical procedure (“just wait to be unblocked and then restore it”) shows a real disconnect from the scale and complexity of the problem. This isn’t about recovering my content out of personal pride. It’s about preserving valid contributions that were deleted without review, based on a logic that prioritizes procedural mechanics over the value of knowledge.

I’m stepping away not because I was caught, but because I can no longer believe in a project that allows weeks—or even months—of honest, well-sourced work to be erased without critical review, simply because of the identity of the contributor. If this message causes even one administrator or editor to pause and reconsider whether our policies always serve the greater goal of free knowledge, then it will have been worth writing.

Sincerely, Geomoto (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You went out of your way to lie to us. When you work hard to destroy the trust of the community, you shouldn't be surprised that the community doesn't trust you and doesn't want your contributions. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, do you truly believe you speak on behalf of the entire community? Because before my contributions were removed without critical review, they were not only appreciated but expanded and improved by other editors — including administrators with more experience, more edits, and greater recognition than you. If the community truly "didn't want my contributions," why were they accepted, maintained, and built upon for months before someone decided they were tainted solely because of the username attached?

I’m not here seeking recognition. I never was. In fact, I explicitly requested that my content be preserved even if I was not credited as the author. My only concern was that the valuable, well-sourced, and fully developed edits remained in the encyclopedia. Every one of those requests was rejected without real consideration. That’s what opened my eyes to how this system now works: it’s not about quality — it’s about identity.

My real name was never attached to those edits, and yet several users — not just one — tried to preserve the content because of its encyclopedic value. Even then, it was removed. The message was clear: no matter how good your work is, if it comes from the wrong user, it will be deleted.

What some administrators — in their apparent sense of superiority — are achieving is not the protection of Wikipedia, but its slow erosion. Wikipedia won’t collapse due to vandals or bad-faith actors. It will fade because it alienates those who genuinely try to contribute, and because it dismisses valuable content in the name of rigid enforcement.

I’ve already made my decision. I will no longer contribute, not through edits, and not through financial support — something I’ve provided regularly for years, even while blocked, because I still believed in the mission. I don’t anymore. Maybe one day, the same thing will happen to you — you’ll pour weeks of work into something meaningful, only to have it discarded by new rules or by people who decide you no longer deserve a voice. And maybe then, you’ll remember this message. Geomoto (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After briefly reviewing your user page, it’s quite clear that your identity on Wikipedia is heavily tied to recognition — awards, stats, titles, even mentions of famous people. That’s your choice, and I don’t criticize it in itself. But it reveals something important: you see value in being seen.

Not everyone works that way. Some people contribute because they believe in the mission, not because they want their name tied to every edit. Some of us prefer to build quietly, without the need for praise, authority, or status. That difference matters.

When you speak as if you represent “the community,” it’s worth remembering that the community is more than the circle of editors who collect barnstars or monitor admin dashboards. It also includes those who contribute without needing a label, and whose work often speaks louder than their usernames.

If the project becomes a place where only those who seek recognition or hold titles are respected — while anonymous or disfavored editors are erased without question — then it’s not an open encyclopedia. It’s a gated hierarchy. And that’s not what Wikipedia was meant to be. Geomoto (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The application is neither rigid nor punitive. Blocks have no meaning if we could all just create new accounts and make "good" contributions. The community will forgive and move on if you give reason to, but lies and disregarding policies when you find them inconvenient will not lead to forgiveness. The sophistry you're using to justify your actions is mind boggling. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge evading a block — that was a mistake. However, my concern is not about being unblocked, but about the loss of constructive, well-sourced content that was removed solely due to my username, without any content-based review.

If the recovery of that content is truly as simple as requesting an unblock, I formally authorize any administrator, including 331dots, to access the JoelMLN edit history and restore any policy-compliant contributions in my name.

This is not about recognition or status. It's about preserving valuable content that served the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia prioritizes procedural enforcement over actual knowledge, then we risk undermining the very purpose of the project. Geomoto (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your user page makes it clear you value public recognition within the community, which is entirely legitimate. However, judging other editors by their visibility or status rather than the quality of their contributions creates an imbalance and goes against Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit. Not everyone seeks recognition; many contribute out of commitment to free knowledge. Turning Wikipedia into a hierarchy would be more harmful than any rule violation. Geomoto (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt this conversation, but we're the volunteer on this site. This isn't testing your knowledge, it's all about making Wikipedia better. Which means, if we, the volunteers, don't make a good contribute, the entire Wikipedia starts to falls apart. Sparkschu Itai (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me offer you some honest advice based on my experience: if you plan to continue contributing to Wikipedia, think very carefully about how much you contribute and in what form.

I strongly advise against developing full articles, no matter how well-sourced or well-written they may be. If you do — especially if you're a new or relatively unknown user — there's a real risk that someone might accuse you of being a sockpuppet or part of a long-term abuse case (LTA). If that happens, your work may be reverted without review, your account blocked, and you may be told your contributions are not welcome — regardless of the actual quality of what you've written.

It sounds harsh, I know, but that's how some parts of the system currently operate. That's why, if you want to avoid problems, my sincere advice is: make small contributions, fix minor errors, add citations here and there. Don’t expose yourself by fully developing stub articles or significantly improving them — because ironically, trying to be too helpful can become a liability.

I realize this goes against the collaborative spirit Wikipedia was meant to embody, but it’s the conclusion I’ve reached after seeing valuable, policy-compliant content deleted — not for what it said, but for who posted it. Geomoto (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I’d like to share — not out of bitterness, but out of realism.

Being too collaborative on Wikipedia can cost you countless hours of your time — time that could be better spent on other projects, studies, or personal growth. You may pour days or weeks into building high-quality, well-researched articles, only to see them deleted or gutted simply because your username raised a red flag or an admin applied a policy mechanically.

If more people begin to realize this imbalance — that good content can be thrown away without proper review, while policy enforcers act like gatekeepers rather than collaborators — then fewer people will be willing to contribute. Donations will shrink, trust will erode, and eventually, Wikipedia may stop being viable.

Maybe that’s what needs to happen. Maybe from that collapse, a new platform will rise — one that truly values contributions based on substance, not status; on facts, not on who happened to click “rollback” first. A platform where knowledge matters more than policy enforcement, and where those who build are more respected than those who police.

Until then, be cautious. Your time is valuable, and this system doesn’t always protect those who give it their best. Geomoto (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have professed you are leaving permanently and don't want to be unblocked, I will remove talk page access since you only have it to ask to be unblocked. If you change your mind, use WP:UTRS. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

....aaaand still violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]