AmericanPropagandaHunter
talk:AmericanPropagandaHunter
AmericanPropagandaHunter, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi AmericanPropagandaHunter! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
January 2021
edit
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Taiwan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
March 2021 ANI Notice
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I'm sure you know your way around ANI, but here is a link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AmericanPropagandaHunter and NOTHERE POV editing. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite block
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 02:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
AmericanPropagandaHunter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No reasonable justification given for indefinite block. Accusing user sought no civil dispute resolution, refused to engage constructively on talk page. Blocking Admin sought no dispute resolution, sought zero contact to user blocked. Unfounded accusation of WP:SOC, unfounded accusation of WP:NOTHERE although targeting WP:NOTHERE content, unfounded accusation of "disruptive editing" even though edits were correcting non-neutral language by disruptive users. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I concur with the reason for the block and see no benefit to Wikipedia in removing it. If you want to be unblocked, it will likely involve you agreeing to a topic ban from that topic area(though it won't be up to me to decide) and you telling us what you will edit about instead. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2021 (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.
AmericanPropagandaHunter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So: What exactly is the actual reason for the block and why do you concur with the reason given and why do you decline this appeal? The accusations made against me were unsubstantiated (please refer to WP:GF). If the reason for blocking me is me using the word "claim", I have reviewed the content policies and undestand what the issue is and will use the word "state" instead. The accusing users/blocking admins sought no dispute resolution or constructive discussion of content (please refer to WP:DR and WP:ADMINACCT). I'm an accredited academic and specialist on China and sinophobic propaganda. Identifying and editing content violating WP:POV, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTHERE related to China is the key contribution I can make to this encyclopedia (please refer to WP:NOTNOTHERE). Why should there be a topic ban on topics that I'm a specialist in? That would defeat the purpose of my presence as a subject matter expert. I will almost exclusively edit content related to China. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppetry, block upgraded to reflect this. Yamla (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2021 (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.
AmericanPropagandaHunter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please refer to WP:GF and WP:DR. At no point did I engage in any kind of sockpuppetry. I already commented on this. Please present evidence so I can defend myself. Addendum: I reviewed the content on WP:SOC - if you believe that I'm a sockpuppet because some user had the same IP as I, that might have something to do with the fact I'm using the WIFI of an office of people who were discussing that article because it was posted as an example of fake news/disinformation on an Austrian academic sinology forum. Right now, you might even find 7 people posting from the same address (i.e. the number of people active in this office right now) in case the discussion has spurred people enough to start contributing. I can stop using my office laptop and switch to a private device for a different IP if you like. In case you believe I'm a sockpuppet, because I share similar opinions to others - that is very likely, as I'm sharing a mainstream view amongst people in my field and it's even more likely for people posting from this office. Ultimately, nobody has yet explained what's wrong with my edits, why they were reverted without WP:DR, why I was blocked in the first place or why my block is indefinitely (without engaging in WP:ABF, that is). As I haven't maliciously violated any content guidelines, getting blocked after a few edits for allegations of WP:POV and WP:SOC sounds a bit absurd, don't you think? Especially considering the content of the article the editing of which I'm being blocked for, which is violating WP:POV on a large number of occassions, which I was trying to improve. As all my contributions were quickly reverted based on nothing but WP:ABF by the very user calling for my blocking and the admin blocking me - even though all I did was change them to a more neutral tone and added sources - there should be more investigation than what is happening here. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:41, 11 March 2021 (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.
AmericanPropagandaHunter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Blocking admins keep repeating accusations and WP:ABF without presenting evidence. Admins refuse to engage in good faith and WP:DR, ignoring my comments and requests. I have not maliciously violated any rules and therefore shouldn't be blocked. Please advice on how to put this forward properly for full review and constructive resolution. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2021 (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.
AmericanPropagandaHunter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have already - and repeatedly - addressed everything people said here. Please unblock me or explain exactly what's missing and what exactly I need to tell you to unblock me. Again, I don't understand what I did wrong because all accusations against me are fully unsubstantiated and I have already addressed them without the people rejecting my blocks addressing what I said. If you can't respond any further to my comments against your decisions, please unblock me. Stop going in circles by rejecting my unblock requests and pretending I haven't addressed your concerns even though I did. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 5:25 am, 20 March 2021, Saturday (1 month, 11 days ago) (UTC−7)
Decline reason:
Addressing only the editing, since you weren't indeffed for the socking issue, I don't find this unblock request any more convincing than the previous several. You continues to argue essentially that there were no issues with your editing. Having looked at the diffs, I don't agree. I believe the POV pushing would continue if you were unblocked, so I am declining this unblock request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2021 (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.
- Please see WP:EXPERT. I won't be reviewing your request, My decline speaks for itself, as does the reason for the block. You're here to push a point of view, not collaborate with others to arrive at a consensus as to what an article should say. What happens now is not up to me, but that's my opinion. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your username speaks for itself as well. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please refer to WP:GF, WP:DR and WP:ADMINACCT. You aren't making an effort to engage in discourse resolution, have not issued any suitable warnings or explanations of blocks (other than WP:ABF). I have engaged with you in a civil and constructive manner while you have presented WP:ABF. Rewording content violating WP:POV and adding sources and context for data is not violating any rules, quite the opposite. I explicitly did not remove any credibly sourced content (even though I vehemently disagree with practically everything in that article) and actively contributed to consensus building by opening talks and inviting people to disagree, so obviously I'm not here to push a point of view but to ACT AGAINST people pushing a point of view. Please refer to the relevant section in WP:NOTHERE you accuse me of violating, I already referred you to WP:NNH. I read the WP:EXPERT article you linked and it confirmed exactly what I said my contribution as a subject matter expert should be (e.g. ensuring WP:POV is adhered to), so I am also confused what you were trying to tell me by referring to it. If you have questions about what I did and why, please ask. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not going to help you wikilawyer this request. I have nothing to resolve with you; I've offered my opinion on your request. If I am grossly in error, someone will unblock you and I will accept my lumps. I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm interpreting what I see. You are now under a checkuser block, meaning that there is private technical evidence to support the sockpuppetry claim. (Evidence even I cannot see) If you are not a sock you will need to provide a plausible explanation as to why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Again, please refer to WP:ABF. You can help resolve this by engaging in WP:GF and WP:DR and explaining your reasoning and your reversion of my contributions and blocking me based on the claim that I'm a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet of what user exactly and on which basis? You can also discuss with me how my contributions should be worded in case you believe they violate WP:POV. I can also explain exactly why I edited the article based on WP:POV. What do you think?AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't block you as a sock, someone else did ,and I don't know the basis for that other than the fact that this is a checkuser block based on private technical evidence that even I cannot see. Even if I did know, if you are socking, you don't need me to tell you about what you are doing. If you aren't a sock, then please explain why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. I don't recall personally reverting your contributions, if you have a diff showing that I did, that would help. Otherwise, I'm not repeating myself. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how these things work, all I see is a huge amount of people accusing me of things left and right because I edited an article on China to remove anti-Chinese bias, but nobody is actually responding to me with clear arguments and explanations, just accusations I don't even understand. I'm trying to read up on everything people throw at me. Looks like it was User:El C (also an admin) who reverted my comments using WP:ABF accusing me of WP:POV without even trying to engage via the talk page despite me repeatedly requesting people to do so and then he blocked me after some user accused me of being a sockpuppet of a user called PLA. However, you decided to uphold his decision, so I asked you to explain. I already explained everything, but people have repeatedly ignored me. Also, it's kind of difficult to explain anything if I'm accused of things without anyone providing me with arguments and evidence. How can I contradict what I don't even understand? Sorry, but I'm feeling a bit like a witch here and don't really know what I'm supposed to do other than call on people to engage constructively and explain things. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't block you as a sock, someone else did ,and I don't know the basis for that other than the fact that this is a checkuser block based on private technical evidence that even I cannot see. Even if I did know, if you are socking, you don't need me to tell you about what you are doing. If you aren't a sock, then please explain why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. I don't recall personally reverting your contributions, if you have a diff showing that I did, that would help. Otherwise, I'm not repeating myself. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Again, please refer to WP:ABF. You can help resolve this by engaging in WP:GF and WP:DR and explaining your reasoning and your reversion of my contributions and blocking me based on the claim that I'm a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet of what user exactly and on which basis? You can also discuss with me how my contributions should be worded in case you believe they violate WP:POV. I can also explain exactly why I edited the article based on WP:POV. What do you think?AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- The simple explanation is that WP:CHECKUSER evidence, originally retrieved by the blocking admin and reviewed by me, shows the creation of User:Exhausted-Sinologist on your small IP address range, and that account proceeded to edit the same debate you were deeply involved in. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I already commented on people posting from the same IP as I, there might even be more people from this IP who started editing at the same time as we discussed this article. Please see unblock requests above. If you have further questions, please just ask. I will also check the user out myself.AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- So, I just checked out the user account you linked me to and compared it to the original accusations I was blocked for, and there are three things here:
- 1. They are a new account and only wrote two(?) comments, both of which were posted after I left the office and neither of which even touch on discussions I was involved in. They also didn't edit the article but only commented on two similar discussions on the talk page?
- 2. I made my last edit right before I ended my shift at my office. I was blocked AFTER I left the office and didn't even see that I was blocked until the morning when I returned. However, their first comment was made an hour AFTER I was blocked. (Also at 4AM. When I was already sleeping.)
- 3. In the morning, I wanted to check back on the article and my edits and saw there was a noticeboard notification for me. It showed the original block happened because a user accused me of WP:POV and being a sockpuppet for the account "PailSimon" (he didn't link to it and I don't know how to search for it). He accused me of WP:POV despite me inviting people to join my discussion on the talk page and me actually removing content violating WP:POV. The original admin blocked me for THAT reason.
- Conclusion: I was not indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry of the user you linked to, as I was indefinitely blocked before that user even was created. The actual reason given for my original block was WP:POV even though neither the user accusing me nor admin blocking attempted any kind of WP:DR before I was blocked without discussion. Now, what kind of random and pointless behaviour would it even be for me to create a sockpuppet account at 4AM in the morning, after being accused of being a sockpuppet, just to spam two random remarks into a discussion page? Why would I even do that?AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your analysis is accurate. If another admin is convinced to unblock notwithstanding the checkuser findings, I will be willing to assume good faith on the checkuser findings and unblock. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have been waiting for someone to comment or change things for quite some time now, but nothing is happening. Don't know how to proceed further, so please do unblock me if you find the time! :D AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also being personally attacked by user colonizor48 (see his comment below), don't know what to do about such behaviour on my own userpage, either. I'm also still asking myself why I got blocked for actually contributing to Wikipedia with well-sourced documentation while people behaving like that are around and how to prevent it? Is there some kind of recourse against the people responsible? Contradicting disinformation and calling people out for deleting it shouldn't be a blockable offense, in my opinion. Personal attacks that don't contribute to any topic - like I have repeatedly experienced and keep experiencing now - probably should be removed, though. Anyway, I'm new to this and don't know how to defend myself against being randomly blocked or how to prevent people from randomly deleting my well-sourced and relevant content without fully justifying it. This block has prevented me from providing important information on dozens of articles for weeks now and has made way for a lot of improperly sourced and insufficiently discussed WP:POV to remain unchallenged. Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia at all. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your analysis is accurate. If another admin is convinced to unblock notwithstanding the checkuser findings, I will be willing to assume good faith on the checkuser findings and unblock. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- At this point, I think we can all agree that - simply by looking at the amount of personal attacks against me and the lack of arguments against my edits - that this is just a a blatant example of censorship attempts made by people with a clear agenda who do not want neutral edits to contradict the anti-Chinese POV they intend to promote. Further down someone tried to promote the view that the alleged "Uyghur genocide" is a fact that's actually happening, despite a total lack of supporting evidence and plenty of debunkation for the claims made by accusing parties. They admit they think I should be blocked from editing because I disagree with their total faith in these allegations and that it's somehow I who isn't neutral. These people clearly aren't neutral and aren't here to promote factual information. It's clearly not just me, either: Judging by what I have seen of how other edits by other users that try to include information that contradicts sinophobic and anti-socialist POV have been treated on this website, there seems to be a large amount of people systematically targeting users promoting factual information about China. So, considering there are literally users on my own userpage who keep targeting and attacking me personally after weeks of my last edit, even though they couldn't actually contradict any of my arguments or explain what's wrong with my edits, maybe someone should look into agenda-pushing and sockpuppetry there instead of keeping up a block against me.AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm Not sure if this matters but "expert in Sinophobic Propoganda" Isn't an actual degree or anything. This is lying and makes this whole thing a bit more suspicious. In addition your name speaks volumes about why you are here. You are clearly biased. I would not assume good faith on this user and keep them blocked if I were an admin based on their name alone in addition to their editing patterns. Sorry if this has nothing to do with me this is just my judgement and I am by no means an expert. Sorry if i'm not supposed to post here I'm just new to this whole wikipedia thing.(My main acc is colonizor48, I don't mean to sockpuppet i'm just too lazy to sign in on this pc.)2620:1D5:EF:2:0:0:0:61 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
From the edits this user has contributed, They consistently push a pro-china point of view on neutral articles, editing the article about the uyghur genocide to include sources from china and multiple pro-china sources. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and is a repeat offender that attacks other editors. I see no benefit to Wikipedia if the block is lifted, since the user has stated they will exclusively edit articles relating to china. The message he put clearly states that he thinks the uyghur genocide is fake and, "sinophobic". This shows an extreme bias, and is the reason he should remain blocked. Since he loves to complain about "nobody addressing his edits", ill address them myself. Your edit on the uyghur genocide article changed the information on the page into calling it all alleged and including a source directly from china and china-backed sources. This is clearly not a neutral point of view, and I plead for any admins considering to unblock him to seriously consider the damage he has already done that had to be fixed. The part where they addressed the socking issue, they made an excuse that was flimsy and un-provable at best, that they "had left the office at that point," and "it was someone else". One more thing, suggesting that a user remains blocked and the reasons why is not a "personal attack". RandomPerson184729 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's double standards are quite flagrant. There's absolutely no way that (already prevalent) pro-US bias would be policed and prosecuted in such a zealous manner. 2601:645:D00:4B80:7C84:2092:82F3:4E1D (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
AmericanPropagandaHunter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Block has been discussed. The original block reason (sockpuppetry) has been reviewed and demonstrated to be invalid. My user page keeps getting targeted by people who attack me personally and pushing POV without addressing my actual edits or arguments, hinting at a possibility that reports against me might be motivated by similar motives. One admin has stated they want to uphold the ban because they accuse me of not wanting to build an encyclopedia and POV without actually addressing my arguments and edits - sorry, but contradicting common misconceptions and POV using neutral language with well-founded research, clear arguments and well-cited sources isn't POV. My personal views and motivations that I allegedly share are irrelevant if the information I provide is honest, truthful, falsifiable and supported by cited sources providing evidence (as it always has been whenever I made an edit). Nobody is free of biases (as the continued personal attacks against me demonstrate), but I don't let them get in the way of faithful discourse. I don't think anyone who wants to build an encyclopedia should try to block people from editing just because they don't like information to be included in articles that contradict their POV. If you have a problem with my edits, engage in the discussion I invite people to and address my edits using arguments instead of removing/vandalizing them and trying to block me. Just because there are many users on this website who try and use Wikipedia as an anti-Chinese soapbox doesn't mean that I am doing the same when I include information contradicting their POV according to editing rules. It's not against the spirit of Wikipedia to focus on niche topics and have unpopular views, either. If you unblock me, I will continue to contradict anti-Chinese POV and I will continue editing articles about China. Not because I have an "agenda" (other than eliminating POV and providing neutral and fact-based information instead), but because those are topics I am most qualified to contribute to. If anyone disagrees with that, I request them to take a look at WP:NOTNOTHERE. I also humbly request --jpgordon or anyone else actually interested in resolving this issue constructively to please unblock me. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not only is it abundantly clear that your sole purpose here is to make articles conform to your political opinions, but you have also made it clear that you have no intention of changing your ways or of taking into consideration what others say. Since you have now had numerous opportunities to write a constructive unblock request and have not done so, allowing you to do so again is unlikely to achieve anything except for further waste of administrators' time which could be more usefully spent on more constructive tasks, so I shall remove your access to this page. JBW (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2021 (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.
UTRS 45842
editUTRS appeal #45842 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)