NachmannWikiWhat
Welcome!
editHi NachmannWikiWhat! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! GizzyCatBella🍁 11:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Standard notice
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit
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.
NachmannWikiWhat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The most abhorrent and arbitrary exercise of power I have ever borne witness to on Wikipedia. I am actually working daily, so unlike GizzyCatBella lack the capacity to spend hours making edits that comprise removing a comma so as to strategically increase edits, bolster their 'standing' and use it to intimidate nascent users, nor the time to email indirectly wikipedia admins to launch manifestly misinformed, calumnious baseless SPI’s into accounts whose agreements they disagree with. This sort of behaviour is inherently destructive to the foundation of Wikipedia, you have users that have flagrantly contravened Wikipedia policy and guidelines
- intimidate users in contravention of (WP:DNB), repels newcomers (easily gleaned from the talk page of most articles he edits).
- exhibits ownership of content, demanding editors to cease editing until he has an opportunity to confirm edits, in violation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR and expressly prohibited by WP:DONTREVERT, specifically undoing a revert under the pretence of "I'll examine those sources later and will comment" is by definition 'Do not revert an edit because you need time to determine whether you agree with the edit'. (being called out for this was what caused GizzyCatBella to scurriedly launch this baseless campaign).
- exhibits general incivility on most talk pages, specifically he has been asked to cease his contemptuous and pugilistic tone for example by Jabbi
- uses stonewalling tactics and goes as far as launching flaccid SIP investigations to ensure his opinion remains the only expressed one in an article (WP:STONEWALLING)
- edits in bad faith with zero attempts to comply with WP:REVERT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:HANDLE, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:CANTFIX or WP:AFG
- unamicably removes all content, making no attempt of rapprochement
- consistently edits in tandem with other like minded editors
- every edit, version he preserves has an easily gleaned sub-text of expressing ultra-nationalist Polish opinions
and rather than such users being held accountable, as all users regardless of edits and influence should, they wield their influence and wikipedia connections to silence prospective users and maintain their role as potentate of an article or rather entire topics e.g. history of Poland, or rather anything involving Poland of that matter. This account has a series of incivil editing behaviours, they have repelled numerous prospective editors, intimidated them and confounded them with non-existent wikipedia guidelines, collaborated with other users on numerous occasions in ensuring their opinion remains or is enforced (a form of sockpuppetry you might like to know) and have made wikipedia generally unwelcome and non-inclusive to people who do not hold a Polish ultra-nationalist weltschaltung, and as of 17th November I have been the latest victim. I will briefly list the reasons as to why this ban is so egregious as well as the accompanying SIP investigation and then move on with my day, as I am sure that so long as GizzyCatBella remains behind the wheel there will be no meaningful change or treatment of accounts, nor a professional handling of my appeal. I will say however that sharks are born swimming, I won’t stand for bullying and once all the editors he has repelled realise, and once Wikipedia realises that one bully is silencing a plurality of opinion the ebb and flow will definitely change. Their extensive one word edits belie a much more sinister motivation, to stifle the opinion of others with whom they disagree. Reasons the ban is beyond illogical:
- None of these accounts have ever contacted, commented or written to YanT121, they have not even edited the same pages.
- In-fact none of these accounts have ever backed the opinion of another, not one comment can be found of one of these listed accounts backing the other, I never agreed with TimothyKloucester in-fact I expressly said to him that 'Well TimothyKloucester I am not going to be the person to effect the change, there is an effective moratorium on this page' disavowing any right to edit the page.
- Some of the 'reasons' are almost so childish as to be funny, the fact that some editors use the source britannica and 'other encyclopaedias' is laughable, yes funnily enough editors do use britannica, perhaps we should all use Polish historians instead, 'all 3 have a matching style of edit summaries' perhaps I am vision impaired but what is similar about any of the listed ones.
- The absurdity is augmented by the facts that some of the listed accounts have not even made one edit, let alone been used to support the others, hence they are listed in violation of privacy rights and in no way as part of a valid SIP.
It is clear to most that this mendacious inquisition is a product of an uncongenial editor with zero cogent arguments to rebute novel information being added but an armoury of wikipedia violations, behavioural violations, and strict adherence to a Polish nationalist POV edit style on all articles that allows no dissenting or differing views. So long as these wikipedia editors scroll impervious to procedural fairness the concept of wikipedia being a meritocratic system is becoming illusory and eroded. I will say it again sharks are born swimming, it would be an understatement to describe this intimidatory behaviour as reproachful.NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)NachmannWikiWhat
Decline reason:
Regardless of the wall of text here, Checkuser confirmed sock of a blocked editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2022 (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.
NachmannWikiWhat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I really don't think not even reading the appeal is even an attempt to provide an appeal, I sincerely ask you to read my appeal RickinBaltimore
Decline reason:
Try again after reading WP:GAB. Note you may only get one more chance, so make it count. Yamla (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2022 (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.