User talk:70.164.212.36

Help me!

Please help me with some guidance as to how I should proceed. I have removed an interpretation (theoretically not allowed by Wikipedia) by an editor in a caption, which was reversed in a matter of minutes, using a lame excuse. I edited again, pointing out the weakness. This time it took 1.5 hours to get reversed, with an added interpretation and two very weak and biased references. I also believe that Wikipedia captions are only for the photo or the figure, but nothing else, and that adding an interpretation is a violation. The reverser asked me to "Talk" for a consensus. I then wrote a lengthy statement of my points, none of which have been answered. What is "Talk" for, if one side does not make attempts for a consensus? Finally, I believe that the relevant article has been hijacked for propaganda by adding lots of verbiage and weak references, and a group of (paid?) people are defending their hijack. I have written that I will escalate the matter to an independent referee (and I will) unless the redundant part of the caption has been removed, which it has not been. In any case, I will let you decide on your own as to at least three Wikipedia violations of ethics, and perhaps provide guidance as to how I should act. Here are the webpages: The article: Burning of Smyrna The caption in question is above the photo of Smyrna (İzmir) burning. It was, when I saw it, "Part of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and the Greek genocide". I objected to the part "and the Greek genocide (1919-1922)" and erased it, noting that no reference has been provided. This was reversed with reference to the context. I deleted again and this was reversed by the addition of "and Armenian genocide [1][2]", with two weak and modern references, presumably to confound me, and to completely change the subject from the fire itself to alleged genocides. I then raised more points and asked the reverser to delete their additions. The Talk page where I have split into a new subject entitled: Talk:Burning of Smyrna#Was the Smyrna (İzmir) fire part of a genocide (Greek, Armenian, or Turkish)? It appears to me that reversing edits while claiming trivial reasons and references has become second-nature (a paid job?) for some people who are policing their propaganda work and they need to be put on notice as well at some point (perhaps long past). Thank you for any guidance you may be able to provide. I am not really familiar with Wikipedia edits and such controversy, in fact I do not even know where your reply will be, but please help if you can. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

By starting a talk page topic, you've done the correct next step when there is a content dispute. Repeated reverts with or without good edit summaries are no substitute.

Wikipedia consensus is largely determined by who shows up. It sometimes takes a while. But try to avoid attributing motives to other editors; even if you suspect them of having an agenda, it's always best to treat them as if they are - like you - earnest Wikipedia editors simply trying to come up with the best content possible in line with Wikipedia's policies. Arguments based simply on your assumption of another editor's motives carry no weight. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply, and a quick one at that. Let me see if I understand. Wikipedia uses AI to determine the end result (consensus) of the Talk process, or did I just fantasize that? However, note that the reverser added more stuff since I last edited. What happens then? If the reverser added more controversial material, do I not have a right to erase that as well, by pointing out my objections regarding their violations of Wikipedia principles, which would be in addition to my previous objections and references? I suppose I could add that to the Talk instead, but then how would that be taken into consideration? 70.164.212.36 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to get more eyes on the issue; you can try the various steps of the dispute resolution process. Perhaps the next step after the talk page discussion is started is to ask for help at a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board as mentioned at the top of the talk page. Edit warring will not help your case and, if it continues, one or both of you may get blocked or otherwise sanctioned. I didn't spot that this subject was currently listed under contentious topics - it does have a {{controversial}} tag - so it might be good to treat is as if it were. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. I examined the WT:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board you mention, but it appears to be a failed project with a hodge podge of subjects and opinions following almost no rhyme or reason, with the last post being in 2012. I will admit, though, that people have been civil in their correspondence, from what I see. Yes, the subject of the fire is controversial, but falsifications and exaggerations should not be allowed, and neither should the hijacking of an article for propaganda purposes relating to an agenda, nor intentionally false interpretations. In any case, I will tread carefully as I proceed. Your help is much appreciated. Let us see how good and sincere Wikipedia really is, because my impression from many articles is that Wikipedia has let propagandists literally run amok and has not done much regarding their insolent remarks either (see e.g. the last post in the subject immediately above the one I split). 70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Question

I posted a question for you to answer in the Dispute resolution thread.  // Timothy :: talk  03:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And I replied on the same thread, right under your question. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Editors involved in propaganda and suppression

I have clear evidence of massive propaganda in an article (though the problem is widespread) and in the way some editors who are protecting the article are behaving, by flatly refusing any edits that do not agree with their propaganda, without engaging in discussion (which I had plenty of), while claiming that consensus is necessary for my edits. I have read the consensus page (WP:CONS) every which way, and in fact found that their reversals without discussion were in violation and that consensus was not a majority vote, which means that I actually have consensus (how that manifests itself still being a mystery to me; apparently there is no flag that pops up saying editor A has consensus?). In any case, I filed a dispute, and, out of the 3 editors who kept reversing my few edits one IP never showed up; the other two tried to blame me for sockpuppeting (not true) and propagandizing (I guess they figure the best defense is offense), using big and contrived phrases such as "most scholars" (not true) etc., and attempted getting me blocked (what better way of getting rid of troublesome truth?) both on the dispute page and by contacting admin editors. However, they had no worthwhile comment on the content of my edits. The dispute is hanging in the air since they were able to affect the would be moderator by making an issue of a question I asked of the moderator, which the moderator used as an excuse to recuse themselves. On the other hand, their statement implied to other would be moderators that no moderator would probably touch this dispute. They also somehow "persuaded" a volunteer admin to bring the matter to another admin that can block accounts. That admin did not block me for obvious reasons, but blocked someone else sympathetic to my edits for edit-warring (and looking in there, I probably would not have, as I also learned about the three reversals rule, this one had two). The volunteer admin's language was as if they were confident of me sockpuppeting. When I complained about that, I was told I was being disruptive everywhere I went (one article is everywhere? and how can someone bring themselves to make such a statement). This admin editor also claimed that they do not remember how they came upon the article (I have reason not to believe that). In any case, I wish to file a complaint against the article editors for massive propagandizing as well as for repeated violation of several important Wikipedia rules along with trying to intimidate new editors like me with being blocked, which appears to be somewhat arbitrary as see the one blocked above, or perhaps depends on who one knows. I am new but I will not be intimidated and wish to forward these complaints to an admin (group?) to have them researched. May I please ask as to how to go about that, since this is a subject that is beyond dispute or content arbitration? Thank you. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, my advice would be to do some editing in non-contentious spaces for a bit while you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and norms. I'm not saying this to brush you off - you will be able to make your case much more coherently once you're more familiar with the way these things go and how consensus is achieved. You might try reading more archive pages of WP:DNR, WP:3O, and/or WP:AFD in the meantime. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear re: your reply to me in Teahouse: I am not saying that I think you are acting in bad faith. I am saying that you look like you are acting in bad faith. You're going to continue to appear this way until you demonstrate that you aren't, by engaging in constructive edits on non-contentious areas of the project. You're not getting sarcastic responses like Heiro's because people are worried you're going to out them as propagandists - you're getting them because people think you are going to cause drama they can bring some popcorn to. Have a look at this chart: [1]. It's a pie chart of your edits. Barely over 15% of them are to mainspace. Every single edit this month has been to the User Talk or Wikipedia namespaces. That's not the edit profile of someone who is earnestly here to build an encyclopedia. If you are here to earnestly build an encyclopedia, you should start actually doing that. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to keep thanking you for your common sense comments, but Heiro did say he reported me to DS (whatever for, I have no idea, but I do have an idea as to why) and he is semi-retired just like one of my edit-reversers, with his page mostly blank (so I think maybe something in a sock, especially as he was probably only there because he is checking into my activity, such as this paragraph here). As for why I keep talking, the edit reversers did not Talk, but tried to get me blocked for edit-warring an sockpuppeting, of all things. Without going into specifics here (see article Talk and read related Dispute talk, if you wish) I really feel that their behavior is in violation of many Wikipedia guidelines, but it seems that I am running into a wall when I try to document that as well. Also, I am not trying to build an encyclopedia, but edit in information based on what I know from appropriate references to add value to what exists, which I hope is allowed. I was just thinking that when I buy a book, the author(s)'s name(s) are on it and I started wondering how people can be expected to believe a source that gets built by anonymous editors, some of whom appear to be continuously trying to get others blocked, but then of course some people will believe anything, especially if they are told "most sources" :) even though there is a single reference there that cites another single reference based on a single person oral narrative. Thanks again and maybe you can guide me in the future as well if some people are unable to get me blocked. Over and out for now. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're running into a wall because you're not yet familiar with the norms and policies of Wikipedia. You haven't been "reported to DS"; you've had the notice of discretionary sanctions placed on your Talk page. Regarding not being here to build an encyclopedia, see WP:BUILDWP. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hold on a second, I never reported you for anything, check my contribs if you think differntly. That was not me. I pointed out to you that other editors had left you a DS warning on your talk page because you were from the beginning diving into an area that is well trodden, where admins know what to watch for with newer editors on a mission, and where you (judging by your contribs history) were determined to be confrontational. Your wall of TLDR sealioning text doesn't help. I asked you the question I did because it was obvious and to the point. A quick glance at your contribs, the articles you actuallly edited (other than talk page space as mentioned above), and what your edits were lets us all hazard a guess at your WP:POV. And I suppose that's probably a violation of WP:AGF for me to say so, but AGF isn't a suicide pact and I posit that your anti-propaganda campaign is a trojan horse to insert your own POV. I'm "semi-retired" because I am no longer as active as I once was, but def not a sock. But it's not me you have to watch out for, it's the hundreds of other WP editors who have been here for well over a decade, and seen this show before, who will be watching your behavior to see what you do next.Heiro 04:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies, as I must have misunderstood what you wrote. With all due respect, you are incorrect with the POV comment, however. How can it be my POV what a U.S. officer and war correspondent in WWI wrote? How can it be my POV what an American Near East Relief worker stationed in Smyrna said to an American newspaper, including the statements of the non-Turkish Smyrna fire chief? You are correct that I am inserting something, but it is not POV. I am inserting more knowledge. On the other hand, some statements that already existed were provably POV (note: provably, not probably), as I have commented over and over, in the article TALK, in the Dispute proceedings, in what I wrote on other editors' talk pages, and here, so I will not repeat myself at your expense. Unfortunately, I have been attacked unfairly because of what I did, since, I believe, it did not suit the purpose of some others who really should be the ones being chastised. It is very likely that I will continue what I am doing with honesty, but I will also pursue my Dispute and further, using every means Wikipedia provides, also intending to pursue the formation of a "propaganda panel/council/etc.". If doing these is bad, please explain to me why? Thank you for your explanatory post. I always appreciate informative and constructive comments. Now, if someone were to educate me on how consensus is said to have been provably attained, that would be great, as WP:CONS appears to be no help in that regard. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks again, as I stand corrected. According to WP:BUILDWP, I am here to "build" an encyclopedia, since I am contributing, both in terms of additional knowledge (references) and in terms of correcting unscholarly statements that have no demonstrability (i.e. "most scholars" "only pro-Turkish authors", etc.) and pointing out weak references (such as book reviews cleverly inserted to inflate number of citations, and those that actually do not match with the statement they are associated with, as well as incorrect interpretations of authors who I can actually translate). I have also respected the references by other authors (even the book review) and removed none, though mine have been wiped off brusquely with no discussion. I am doing this in subjects I have solid knowledge on (should I edit articles on Zimbabwe?), and I daresay plenty more than those who have reversed my limited well=meaning edits, since I saw no discussion, but plenty of accusations. Is that not what Wikipedia wants, whether just one word or an entire set of articles? This is the essential question. Again, I very much appreciate your constructive comments. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing Eastern Europe or the Balkans which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

February 2023

Hello, I'm Taking Out The Trash. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Cullen328. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your even toned comments of February 11, so I am coming to you for advice. I feel that I have been seriously insulted by Cullen328, who has taken a commandeering tone with his reply to me on his Talk page in the first instance and appears to have erased his second reply, as I distinctly remember being asked not to post on his Talk page again, but that reply is not there now. Also included in his erased reply was how he could apply his powers as an admin (is this how new editors are chased off?). He accused me of ethnic POV pushing without any reason or proof, and I take that as an ethnic slur along with other statements he made. I now wish to file a complaint against him both for his attitude and the baseless ethnic slur, but the last time I tried to explain myself, almost everyone ganged up on me on form without considering the content. What would be your advice on how to go about filing the complaint? I am not familiar with all the formalities. Thanks. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Heiro 07:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 11 February 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I notice that I have been blocked from editing for a week for disruptive editing, so I hope that you will do me the favor of reading the few lines here. My article editing for Burning of Smyrna was done absolutely in good faith, within four attempts, all brusquely reversed with very little or no discussion. I did not repeat myself in the edits, except when the reverser did not even give a reason in the last instance. I introduced solid contemporary references by Americans, which were removed. My only "crime" can be trying to defend myself against all the unfair accusations hurled against me, where I tried to reason with the people who accused me of edit-warring, sockpuppeting, propaganda, pushing an ethnic agenda, etc. with a chorus of requests that I be blocked, while the content of my edits was never under serious review. I have also suggested Wikipedia may be persuaded to form a commission/panel to investigate propaganda. You would have to do some reading (the article Burning of Smyrna, my edits, the dispute I filed, and my correspondence with others) to see that I mean every word here, and to see whether the article, as it stands and without my edits, is actually acceptable or is one-sided, violating many Wikipedia rules or guidelines. There was one good that came out of my struggle to add value to Wikipedia, as someone removed a book review that was cited as evidence after I pointed it out. In my view, the article is not scholarly or neutral and has been hijacked for propaganda, and thus, I feel, the severe attacks against me. While I do not intend to edit within the next week anyway as I wish to continue learning Wikipedia and I leave it to your discretion whether to unblock, it hurts that I am the one who got sanctioned with all this going on. I would still appreciate a discussion of this message, and promise that I will not reply unless asked to, as replies appear to work against me for reasons unknown to me. Thank you. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nothing here convinces me you plan to take a different approach if unblocked. Indeed, everything you are saying indicates you believe you are in the right and will not change your approach. Yamla (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2023 (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.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Wikipedia and I

This is for the benefit of those who are interested in where I will show up next after I was thrown in the dungeon for a week. My own talk page looked harmless enough, since I cannot be said to be disrupting myself. I think I may soon be filing complaints against a few people who I feel should at least be warned for their attitude, and in one case for clearly being a sockpuppet and/or a mouthpiece in addition to lying, but right now I am busy with more important stuff, waaay more important than dealing with a number of petty people. While in the dungeon, I perused the Wikipedia article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia, and I must say that Slate writer David Auerbach hit the nail on the head in diagnosing the symptoms of the malady Wikipedia appears to be suffering from: "I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka's The Trial I have ever witnessed, with editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting "boomeranged" onto complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency in the standards applied. In my short time there, I repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare "Ignore all rules!" when faced with the same rules used against them ... The problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them." I wonder why that sounded real familiar to me. However, to me his diagnosis of the malady itself was not complete. I believe part of the "fortress mentality" also comes from propagandists with bad intent, but you know this already, or do you? The question is whether I should fight tooth and nail to get a few honest and provable edits into articles that are not vetted by scholars and are protected 24/7 by (probably paid) propagandists or find another way to convince people that non-scholarly work in an encyclopedia has little if any value. All answers are welcome. Thanks. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP,

In regards to the statements above, I have some comments/advice.

1. Read Wikipedia:Five pillars it and other policies explain Wikipedia’s five core goals and values. Knowing these may help you be more effective here.

2. In regards to “are not vetted by scholars and are protected 24/7 by (probably paid) propagandists” Paid editors must disclose their paid editing, and I advise you not to call others propagandists when you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Good job making talk page posts when you are having problems, some users edit war or make uncivilized comments towards other editors. (Don’t do that) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 07:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Illusion. Thanks for your comments. Please see the communication just below this reply to you. Yes, I do know what I am talking about, unfortunately, and it is sad that Wikipedia has no real defense against what is going on.70.164.212.36 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, you originally blocked this IP, could you look at the above, specifically if the PAs towards the end merit a longer blocked.  // Timothy :: talk  08:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't you think people would find it curious as to why you are following my Talk page? As for you asking me to get blocked, "curiouser and curiouser" (quote from Alice in Wonderland, so never mind the bad grammar).70.164.212.36 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure quite a few people follow this talkpage since your posts last month garnered attention at the notice boards. Many of us watchlist disruptive editors to keep an eye on them and cutoff future disruption before it can become too damaging to the encyclopedia. But you just keep on thinking it's some kind of idiotic conspiracy by "paid propogandists". Because those kind of accusations and that kind of WP:BATTLE attitude is going to get you indefinitely blocked, eventually. Heiro 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The "usual suspects" are showing up one-by-one (or in duplicate?). Apparently you guys have nothing better to do. If you have so much time on your hands, why not try to explain why my references by two Americans were deleted from the article Burning of Smyrna, and why, when I was trying to explain that associating the fire with an alleged "Greek genocide" in the caption was wrong (still against Wikipedia rules), you (or was it Timothy, I can't tell the difference) added "Armenian genocide" to further confound the issue. There is more, but I do not want to be accused of writing too much. Btw, it must be nice to have this blocking weapon handy to keep away people who try to add facts to Wikipedia. "Shoot, but first listen".70.164.212.36 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You definitely have a battleground mentality with comments like:

The "usual suspects" are showing up one-by-one

Apparently you guys have nothing better to do

it must be nice to have this blocking weapon handy to keep away people who try to add facts to Wikipedia.

Most of us don’t have the block button, including @Heironymous Rowe, @Illusion Flame, and @TimothyBlue. It is also not a weapon. Blocks are not punishments, they are ways to prevent disruption. I strongly caution you from personal attacks towards other editors. Please remain civil and don’t make comments like above. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Why would I be causing a disruption on my own Talk page? Anyway, according to my observations, it looks like one can still say things like "Official Turkish talking points will not fly here. You can rage and seethe and grouse until you are all red in the face" (a Marshal Bagramyan on Burning of Smyrna Talk page in his reply to a Murat. There is more in his/her reply that is quite unacceptable and insulting, but apparently he has immunity. If not, I would like to ask that he be blocked for making insulting comments! Do you know the story of the king's dream interpreter? There is more than one way to say things. I am sure I will get through to someone, with the right words. I am always appreciative of well meaning suggestions, but it would also be nice if someone were to consider seriously that I may also well have a point.70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

New message from HJ Mitchell

Hello, 70.164.212.36. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 09:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

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) 02:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

The bigoted battleground conduct on display in this edit [2] causes me to doubt your ability to edit Wikipedia productively in any capacity. If any of this behavior recurs, the block will be extended. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

It is curious that I am blocked for a month as soon as I expose an editor for her/his foul language against Turks, Turkey, Ataturk, and his "rabble army". Are these insults not sufficient for someone to be unsuitable for WP? WHat if I had made similar remarks for some other ethnic group? You say I am bigoted (I am not, I actually happen to have Armenian and other Christian friends, believe it or not). How about the person Bagramyan who insults and tries to intimidate others? You say I make disruptive edits. I filed a complaint against someone and for a very good reason, since I did not think that person really belonged in WP, and I did not disturb anyone on their Talk page or elsewhere since my one week block. Could you not have waited until at least the complaint got resolved? Now people are going to say I did not defend my points and the person I complained against will go scot free. Try reading the Burning of Smyrna article and my edits and what happened to them, and you will see why I have been complaining about what is going on. SOP by some of these people: 1) Delete others' edits citing irrelevant reasons such as ethnic POV (no such thing in my edits, though there is a chorus claiming that. I say prove it! Everything I wrote is sourced, and a lot of things in the article were not), 2) ask them to the Talk page, 3) Do not reply to anything they write on the Talk page 4) If they insist on inserting their edits again, scream bloody hell and ask that they be blocked and make sure your cohorts join you in the protest against this troublemaker. So how did you decide to block me, I wonder, within a couple of hours of my filing the complaint (Am I not allowed to file a complaint?). The person I complained against must be someone with a strong following, or one of the good old boys. Btw, TimothyBlue is the person who deleted my first edit in Burning of Smyrna in under 3-minutes flat and asked me to the Talk page and never replied to my explanations. He just reappeared after my complaint. Is he a stalker or an alias for Bagramyan that he knew so fast about my complaint? In any case, now that I am blocked he is free to say untrue things about me since I cannot reply. May I suggest you go read the Slate author's comments in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia :

"In the online magazine Slate, David Auerbach criticized the Arbitration Committee's decision to block a woman indefinitely without simultaneously blocking her "chief antagonists" in the December 2014 Gender Gap Task Force case. He mentions his own experience with what he calls "the unblockable"—abrasive editors who can get away with complaints against them because there are enough supporters, and that he had observed a "general indifference or even hostility to an outside opinion" on the English Wikipedia. Auerbach considers the systematic defense of vulgar language use by insiders as a symptom of the toxicity he describes."

I am not as good with words as Mr. Auerbach, but I know a toxic environment when I see one. I believe the only reason WP still exists is because some online searches put it on top for an inexplicable reason (maybe they get paid), but that will change eventually. I entered and tried to do some good, but I am up against many who value form over content (in the best case scenario). On second thought, don't bother unblocking. I will enjoy the one month and may not bother coming back. You all can continue playing in your little sandbox and block all troublemakers who are actually trying to contribute something meaningful, while propagandists infect WP further, using book reviews as references and big learned phrases like "most scholars" citing a book that uses the same phrase while referring to a single book with only a single person as some vague evidence, and saying mean things about Turks (fair game, right?) while rejecting every troublesome source as "ethnic POV", even if the source is a Christian American eyewitness. If you do not believe me, look for yourself and you will find yourself in Wonderland with Alice. But if you are one of the cohorts, then I am just wasting my time. I suppose if your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails, so maybe you are stuck with the job of doing what your colleagues impose on you. Have a good day in either case.70.164.212.36 (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's clear to me that editing Wikipedia is not a good fit for you. That isn't in and of itself bad, this isn't for everyone- but it's clear you are unable to act in a collaborative manner. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2023 (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.

It's not curious at all. I advised you to read WP:BOOMERANG, to drop the stick, and go edit something constructively that wasn't in a contentious area. That your own comments and actions would be under scrutiny.[3] You have not once shown you understand wikipolicy (although for a very new editor you make a big show of trying to explain them badly to everyone else and how everyone else is in error), or that you could in any way have been the one violating the policies yourself. From the get go you have called everyone who disagrees with you an assorted variety of WP:PAs, the most often used being "paid propagandist" or insinuating everyone is a sock. You double down on it in the above unblock request, accusing TimothyBlue of either being a sockpuppet or a member of a cabal of "good old boys" aligned against you. In case you have not noticed yet, every time an uninvolved editor looks at your behavior (including the recent blocking admin and numerous other long time editors at the ANI you started, all neutral parties looking at you for the first time), they all agree your behavior and WP:POV editing are the problem. You need to accept that you are the one editing against policy and change how you interact here, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. But, after an admin reads that unblock request you'll be lucky if they don't change your block to indefinite and show you the door. Heiro 07:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

---