Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It seems that in 2014 Crimean crisis you are reverting too much and discussing too little. This is not what is expected from you per WP:CONSENSUS. Please discuss at the talk page before reverting again, otherwise your account may be blocked from editing. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2014 (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).
Russian mod banning me for non russian point of view. Please see 2014 Crimean crisis for reference on the monopoly of russian nicknames adding pro russian bias to the article. In addition, Edit Warring doesn't apply the same way to me since the edits that get left alone are hugely by russian posters showing pro russian views. I bet this humble russian admin has something to do with that. 86.13.221.231 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2014 (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.
To PhilKnight-
That's ridiculous, just take one look at the article. Any other point of view besides the russian one would do some good.
I also, didin't see a dispute except with some russian posters whom I believe are too brainwashed by their own government controlled media to even have a rational discussion, that's what happened to the rest of the editors on the article. They gave up trying to reach a consensus, and that's why it's so pro russian.
Thanks for clearing that up and showing that you both have a blind eye for the obvious. I might rewrite the whole article with dicussions in the talk page at another time, but I doubt that will be productive since most of the editors there have no common sense and often turn a blind eye to any kind of information that their own media (such as RT) doesn't promote.
If I don't get banned for irrelavant reasons again ofcourse
Also, I must say that I get banned for small simple edits, while several russians edit in and out bullshit (for people who don't ignore the obvious), or in other words russian propoganda (including the backwards mindset that Russia is not at all involved in crimea). If anything you should ban other editors for reverting my changes, both of whom again I remind you, are extremely biased and shouldn't be treated the same way given the circumstances of their background (government controlled media) and motive to misinterpret news to suit the pro russian view, especially that article holy shit
Complete monopoly of pro Russian editors (shitheads) at the crimea article
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please die in a fire or bugger off back to RT you fucking brainwashed vatnik retards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.221.231 (talk • contribs)
I have blocked you again for continued hostility and personal attacks which have continued since the last block was made, this time for 1 week. When you return from your block, please consider the tone and manner in which you engage in disputes. Whether or not you have valid criticism about the content of Wikipedia articles, you should refrain from name-calling, abusive and hostile language, and accusations of bad faith. Instead, when you do return, focus on improvements to the content of Wikipedia text by providing reliable sources and engaging in collaboration with other editors to arrive at a consensus. If disputes do arise, and appear intractable, instead try using the dispute resolution processes available to you at Wikipedia to get outside help. It isn't that what you have to say about Wikipedia article content is wrong (it may or may not be, I don't know, and whether it is or isn't doesn't enter into this discussion), it's that your behavior is unacceptable and needs to stop. It would be a shame if your behavior prevented you from providing needed fixes to Wikipedia articles, so instead change your tactics and focus on content improvement rather than on attacking other editors. If you believe you should be unblocked before the 1 week block expires, use the {{unblock}} template as you have done above, and explain why you either a) think this block is in error or b) how you intend to change your behavior so that this sort of thing won't happen again in the future. Good day. --Jayron3219:47, 1 October 2014 (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).
I agree that might behaviour is over the top. Sorry If I don't have patience for people who abuse the system.
My contributions were reverted because some editors with power at the Crimea crisis article don't listen to facts, and use irreliable sources themselves.
There is more important issues than what the pro-russian editors want you to focus on. The reason I got this ban was because the russian editor (can't be bothered to remember his nick) cherrypicked my comment again.
I will get blocked everytime im not spotless in regards to the policy. BUT IT IS THIS SAME POLICY THAT THE EDITORS AT THE CRIMEA ARTICLE ARE ABUSING. I just don't have time to discuss every little topic before making edits.
You could expect those russians/Ymblanter to request a discussion on matters like this:
"Why is the sky blue? Do you have any proof? Here's an old unreliable article from RussiaToday that says the sky is green. Here you go, prove it is otherwise."
I don't really care If I become unblocked, since If I do - the pro-russian mod Ymblanter can block me again for any reason. (They don't actually play by the rules to begin with.).
I just don't believe this policy enforcement is legit, when it came about from people who are abusing the policies themselves. If this doesn't make sense to you I'm fine to keep my block, although it would be nice to bring some more attention to the matter of pro-russian monopoly at that article. You only need to look one time at that article's history to see what I mean.
Just like in Crimea they're pulling the same stuff they did with United Nations, it's in their blood to abuse systems and wikipedia policies.
I might still report Ymblanter again tho. Unless this guy loses his admin powers that article WILL stay extremely pro-russian
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
There is no point if you only look at my comments and pick policies to see If I adhere or didin't adhere to them.
This whole matter would have been solved If I had admin rights: pro-russians would be banned and the crimea crisis article would have been spotless.
But no, you just had to cherrypick according to the rules and nothing else. I have no patience for policy abuse, yet every person that blocked me has.
You should be ashamed, as the policies will never, ever produce a quality article by themselves. And refusing to do something about the crimea crisis article is much worse that blocking people who try to revert propaganda that the russians are faithfully and blantantly editing in.
Even if someone is harrasing users (who harass others by ADHERING to the rules)
RULES CAN BE MANIPULATED AND THAT'S WHAT THE RUSSIANS LIKE YMBLANTER ARE DOING, WAKE UP
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's amazing how they can spin doctor you to look like such a bad person for this comment. There was nothing "personal" about that comment at all. When I read it all I see is someone frustrated at the system.
Don't worry, this kind of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia, it's nothing about you. Wikipedia's histories is full of people being banned and mobbed. And it's not just Wikipedia's fault either, many other websites are like this too. For example, in Conservapedia, another version of Wikipedia, it's rumoured that something got so darn bad a person committed suicide.
Jayron32 could have calmly discussed your concerns and had a nice chat with you on the go. But no.
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
Hello, I'm Loriendrew. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Penn Jillette, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
. Seryo93 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
