AP295

Without judging any particular conflict you may be having, Ill say that I know dealing with other editors can be frustrating sometimes, especially when you feel they are not acting in good faith. All i can say is hang in there. The only antidote to bad faith editing is for editors who are acting in good faith to stick around.

If it makes you feel any better, POV pushing is exhausting and the POV pushers generally burn out and disappear. Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: The problem Wikipedia has is not just independent, volunteer editors with strong opinions. It's cointelpro and other propagandists with ulterior motives, financial backing, and organizational support. Well-intentioned, independent volunteers cannot reasonably be expected to contend with so organized efforts. Additionally, WP:AGF cleverly preempts organic discussion of the matter and suppresses awareness. AP295 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia was pretty much designed for POV pushing. I like Wikipedia and use it frequently, but it strongly condones POV pushing by stacking the deck in favor of propagandists. It's de-facto one of the most prominent and frequently used sources of information for the general public. When you search something in google or duckduckgo, Wikipedia is often near the top of the list or even it its own special box on the right. When you ask Amazon's echo a question, you'll often get an answer from Wikipedia. It is not, however, controlled by the public. Members of the public who attempt to collaborate might find it surprisingly hard to do so, despite its ostensible status as an "open-collaborative" project. There's very little accountability for the information that appears here, despite Wikipedia's reach. Somewhat disturbing, if you think about it. AP295 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

SWhat I find disturbing is such serious allegations without evidence, a clear violation of of WP:AgF which is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sometimes you have to trust your gut. I really hope I am wrong. If you can convince me that I'm wrong, I'll gladly remove it. Otherwise, spare me your indignation, because I've had one too many bad experiences here. AP295 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I prove a negative? I'm saying you have no evidence, and that seems to be the case. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Given Wikipedia's reach and influence, it stands to reason that there exist many editors with ulterior motives. I feel that WP:AGF shields them from suspicion and criticism. Your counterpoint, which is in the vein of na-na-na-na-na-na-you-can't-prove-it does not convince me otherwise. AP295 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, do you really not understand my point? Or are you so used to receiving the benefit of the doubt that you can't understand why "you-can't-prove-it" is a nonsensical reply in this context? I never imagined I'd meet so many wackadoos on Wikipedia... AP295 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about claims of financial backing, and organizational support, not ulterior motives (although I have no idea what you mean by that other than pov editing. which I see all the time. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it's unlikely that such groups exist? AP295 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I’m D🐶ggy54321. I just wanted to let you know that I removed your post at WP:3O because there were three involved editors in your dispute. From my knowledge, the dispute must have only two involved editors, but when I clicked on the links that you provided, it seemed like there were three (BeŻet, I Use Dial and you) involved editors, so I removed it. Just wanted to let you know. Have a great day/night! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Hello there. The user I Use Dial was not really involved in the discussion between BeŻet and I, or the changes I made to the article. We had a third editor come in but they didn't feel strongly either way, so I'm not sure whether I should put it back on WP:3O or let BeŻet make it into an RfC. AP295 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I’ll add it back at 3O, I had only removed it because there were three involved editors. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to weigh in if you have any thoughts. AP295 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JBL (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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 intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2021 (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).

AP295 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I never edited Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist), I only supported another editor's suggested changes in their section of the talk page. The involved editors could have ignored it and I would not have replied further. Regarding the "userpage blog" complaint (discussion), my position is exactly as I had stated it. Anyone is welcome to take the content down. Many users do share their opinions of Wikipedia on their userpages and so I don't feel its inappropriate, but if you should disagree, then you may remove it. I was blocked very quickly and did not have time to plead my case at the ANI. My reply was sincere, but another user accused me of trolling and I was promptly issued an indefinite ban. I am absolutely here to build an encyclopedia, and if you look at my contributions you will see many sincere attempts to improve Wikipedia. I edit main articles with due consideration. I do not take it lightly and prefer to discuss changes on talk pages before making them. I hope to continue improving Wikipedia. @331dot: I made no changes to that article. I stated that I would make no changes without consensus at the outset of the discussion on its talk page. I do not consider this disruptive behavior. If you feel otherwise, please explain why. AP295 (talk) 3:13 am, Today (UTC+9)

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for editing the article but for comments like "Can the ADL or the SPLC really be considered unbiased sources here?". Arguing that a friend of David Duke's and a member of a white nationalist organization is not being an antisemite when he says that Jewish culture is going to destroy western civilization is pretty clear evidence that you've approached this site with an incompatible attitude. Don't bother saying "I was just asking questions"; your question was clearly rhetorical given how much you dug your heels in despite readily available correction. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 7 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.

I am in agreement with the rationale provided at ANI and think that your participation is a net negative unless you find another area to edit in. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: What do you mean "another area"? I can certainly avoid his biography (or all biographies, if you prefer). I feel that I've done a lot of good work here. Improving Wikipedia is often a sisyphean task and I get frustrated just like anyone else when it seems I'm not getting a fair shake. It wasn't any of my past editing that provoked the ANI complaint, but as soon as I gently voiced a minor criticism of the ADL on a talk page, I was issued an indefinite ban within minutes. Seems rather capricious, no? But I'll avoid sensitive topics like antisemitism, if you prefer. AP295 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can convince someone to unblock you without this condition, fair enough, but personally I would want you to agree to a topic ban from topics related to antisemitism on any and all pages(including talk), in order to support unblocking you. It is, however, up to the reviewing administrator. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay then, I guess we'll wait and see. It's not really a can of worms I want to get into anyway, but I resent being characterized as an antisemite. Some of my best professors in college were Jewish and I am deeply grateful to them. While Jewish diaspora are responsible for many great things, Boasian anthropology is not one of their better conceptions and some of MacDonald's criticisms are well-founded. Other than that I have no dog in this fight and won't edit any related articles without talk page consensus. AP295 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel that I've done a lot of good work here. Any reviewing administrator should please take the time to look over AP295's contributions in assessing the accuracy of this statement! --JBL (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll miss you the most JayBeeEll. I might just cry myself to sleep if we can't be friends anymore. AP295 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you are an antisemite or not, and my intention was not to characterize you as anything. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A topic ban would carry that implication. AP295 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree, it only means that you have trouble editing about the topic. It's possible to have difficulty editing about a topic without a personal connection to it. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• To the reviewing administrator There are other problems with this user than those related to antisemitism and political subjects. His behaviour is also disruptive in less sensible areas such as mathematics. A example is given by the long discussion at Talk:Basis (linear algebra)#Sequences or sets. This discussion shows clearly that this user is definitely unable to have constructive discussions, and even to have a behavior that is not disruptive. Therefore, a topic ban seems not sufficient, whichever it is. D.Lazard (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

My first edits were to principle component analysis, and I'm proud to say that I think the intro is much improved. It took several weeks of back-and-forth content disputes (including a frivolous ANI complaint) before we achieved a compromise, and my persistence eventually paid off. I am not trying to be argumentative or non-constructive, but I can't seem to accomplish much here without being persistent. I still disagree with you on the basis article, but I dropped the stick. AP295 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I also fixed up some gun control articles that did not conform to WP:NPOV, and have made several other constructive edits to various articles and talk pages. AP295 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Since this editor pinged me in their comments on Kevin MacDonald talk page I have looked at their other contributions. Their superficially civil tone is directly contradicted by the vaguer, conspiratorial aspersions they cast on this talk page at #Hang in there. Their comments at Talk:Non-aggression principle and Talk:Concealed carry in the United States both show a similar pattern of stubborn disruption. A topic ban would not be sufficient. If this editor is going to blame all disagreement on propagandists with ulterior motives, financial backing, and organizational support then they are not capable of working collaboratively. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm about as civil as anyone could reasonably expect considering the sort of treatment I've been given on Wikipedia since day one. I am capable of working collaboratively and I will try to avoid "conspiratorial" tangents in the future. AP295 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of the dispute at Talk:Concealed carry in the United States concerned a WaPo article that grossly misrepresented the results of a study on concealed carry and crime. I identified this misrepresentation and forbade the citation of the WaPo article. I consider my edits to the Wikipedia article a positive contribution, even if those edits were hard-won or the discussion became heated at times. Such is human nature. AP295 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: So to be clear, I am blocked for an opinion that I expressed on a talk page? Which rule does this violate and is it really grounds for an indefinite site-wide block? It sounds like you simply disagree with my opinion and I don't see how sharing my opinion on a talk page is "disruptive". According to WP:BP, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. @331dot:, if you want to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. It seems I'm left with no recourse and I really don't think I've earned a lifetime block according to the rules. AP295 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add at this time. You may make another unblock request to be reviewed by someone else. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You are not blocked simply because you expressed an opinion, that opinion was one example of many opinions that show an attitude that's fundamentally incompatible with the site's goals. Such an attitude is only going to result in trouble for articles and useful editors, which is why your ability to edit is revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: And for the record, I maintain that the ADL is a dubious source to use in this instance. As I said earlier I'm sure you can understand the conflict of interest that arises if the ADL has the prerogative of designating who or what is "anti-semitic". They have every reason to misrepresent MacDonald's work. I'm not saying they do, or that MacDonald is right, or that he's not anti-semitic. But it's ridiculous on its face to consider the ADL an objective/unbiased source on the subject of this article. The ADL has a long history of attacking critics using accusations of anti-semitism and other ad hominems. I'm not saying that MacDonald isn't an anti-semite, just that his comment you referenced and "The Culture of Critique" (which is the only work of his that I've read) don't bear that out in my opinion. At least not as sufficient grounds to call him an "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi" in the lead of his WP:BPL. You're misrepresenting my comments and it doesn't exactly shore up my faith in WP:AGF or WP:NPOV. Criticism, however harsh, is not necessarily anti-semitism, and the ADL dishes out quite a bit of their own criticism. I have nothing against Israel or Jews, and I'd support Zionism all the way. What I will not support is this Orwellian suppression of criticism. It's disturbing and entirely contrary to the principles my nation nation was founded upon. It's hard not to sympathize with MacDonald's views when I'm blocked merely for taking them into consideration. I didn't even want to open this can of worms and would have just as readily dropped the issue if I hadn't been blocked, but I'm now forced to defend myself. AP295 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And for the record, I maintain that your attitude (expressed in that opinion and elsewhere) leaves you of no use to the community. As your continued talk page access is for understanding why you were blocked for the purposes of your own reform (not to misconstrue it to get out through some quasi-legalism), and for making appeals that have at least a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, you are providing us with less and less reason to allow you to continue to post here. In short, if you don't accept that you were validly blocked and that you lack the capacity to safely edit articles relating to race and politics (at a minimum), you are not getting unblocked. Arguing that you were right or that you have rights or whatever is only going to get your talk page access revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: But I did not edit any articles relating to race and politics. Earlier in this section, I agreed to a topic ban on such articles. Why am I blocked in anticipation of something I might do, but have not done and have clearly agreed not to do? If you don't want me talking about race and politics, fine. I won't undermine your narrative of Boasian anthropology. I've got better things to do here anyway, like improve the abysmal quality of Wikipedia's math and computer science articles, which are severely underrepresented as WP:FA and WP:GA. AP295 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: And to be clear, I know exactly why I was blocked. If Boasian anthropology were sound, then it would stand up to criticism. Criticizing it, or criticizing its proponents, is verboten because Boasian anthropology is no more sound or rigorous in its rejection of darwinism than the rejection of evolution by religious groups. Willful ignorance disguised with a vague humanist objective. You've got to take the good with the bad if you want to remain objective and intellectually honest. I won't edit any related articles, you have my word on that. I only believe that everyone should question their beliefs and be willing to discuss them, for their own edification. I'm not a "nazi". I am not cruel. I do not wish harm upon anyone. AP295 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And if this is what I am ultimately blocked for, so be it. I wouldn't be able to look at myself if I did not stand up for the first amendment. AP295 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is is not a free speech forum. The First Amendment only means that the government cannot jail or punish you for your speech. It does not affect private entities like Wikipedia, that can determine what does and does not appear on their computers. This is no different than you being able to determine what is said and done within the four walls of your residence. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes, you are correct that this is not a free speech forum. However, with so much online communication conducted through gated communities like Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, etc, these organizations are de facto entirely capable of mass censorship, should that suit their objectives. No, this form of censorship does not violate the letter of the law, but it's certainly contrary to the spirit of the law. An unfortunate state of affairs. I still try to improve Wikipedia because it's a valuable resource for so many people. AP295 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You are free to go and purchase your own computers, a building to house them, pay people to maintain them, and internet access, and operate a website with whatever rules you wish. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Obviously I do not have the means to create, host and promote my own encyclopedia. So no, your glib remark does not offer me or anyone else a practical recourse. AP295 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Would you please review this request? You were very objective in your assessment of an earlier complaint against me on WP:ANI, and I would regret being excluded from this community without due consideration. AP295 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the blocking administrator and the declining administrator. Saying things like It's hard not to sympathize with MacDonald's views when I'm blocked merely for taking them into consideration gives me no desire to unblock you. If getting blocked from a website makes you sympathize with Nazis, I'd prefer you stay blocked for the reasons already given before this point. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: If you are confident in your own beliefs, is that really how you ought to deal with someone who might be on the fence? Or am I entirely a lost cause for entertaining MacDonald's criticisms? AP295 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I am truly saddened though. You may be disinclined to unblock me but all I am asking is that you consider whether or not my reply was in violation of the rules to such a degree that I should be blocked for life. You call me a Nazi sympathizer, but that is not at all true and I am stunned that you'd make such an accusation so casually. The ADL is a one-trick pony, they conflate legitimate criticism with anti-semitism. I had hoped reason would prevail over cheap propaganda here on Wikipedia, but Aristotle put it best: They will often have allowed themselves to be so much influenced by feelings of friendship or hatred or self-interest that they lose any clear vision of the truth and have their judgement obscured by considerations of personal pleasure or pain. AP295 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And if you remain unmoved and still feel I should not be here, I will not return , though I hope you'll consider commuting my block to a temporary one. AP295 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll be back in September to request the standard offer. WP:SO advises users to "make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return", so perhaps you can recommend something I should do in the meantime. AP295 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2021 (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).

AP295 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see the discussion above

Decline reason:

Seen, as explained above. —SpacemanSpiff 13:02, 8 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.

@SpacemanSpiff:, and also @Ian.thomson:, @331dot: Can you explain specifically which rule I broke and how being blocked will prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia? According to WP:BP, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. The user Ian.thomson stated that I am blocked for "opinions that show an attitude that's fundamentally incompatible with the site's goals". I didn't even edit the article in question and expressed my intent (well before being blocked) not to edit it without consensus on its talk page, so his explanation sounds more like a euphemism for "opinions I don't like". I've already agreed to a topic block, and so I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you that I don't intend to be disruptive. Despite that Wikipedia calls itself an open-collaboration, my impression is that it's a very insular project. Wikipedia has a handful of users who make a huge number of edits but act passive-aggressively or outright rude toward newcomers. For example, look at the first discussion I had on Wikipedia. Everyone eventually conceded that my suggestions had merit, but how many people would have been so persistent? How many people could maintain civility? I can collaborate just fine. If anyone has an attitude problem, it's the cadre of regular editors who wear down newcomers and turn the editing process into a Sisyphean nightmare. AP295 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff:, and also @Ian.thomson:, @331dot:. Per WP:ADMINACCT, I will await a reply before requesting another review. To me, the block seems capricious and largely motivated by a difference of opinion rather than an instance/instances of "disruptive behavior". I am not a bigot and neither WP:NONAZIS nor WP:HTBAE are Wikipedia policy. AP295 (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And I also withdraw my consent to a partial/conditional block if it can't clearly be shown that I broke official policy. AP295 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Then you should request unblock on that basis and see how well it goes. I would oppose unconditionally unblocking you, but it isn't up to me. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were doing the standard offer? 331dot (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: I considered it but now that I'm more familiar with Wikipedia's rules, I don't believe the ANI complaint against me has a basis in Wikipedia's official policy. I am not happy that I was broadsided with accusations of bigotry and a complete, indefinite block for my comments on the talk page, and I don't want to set a bad precedent for other editors by making undue concessions. If I did not break policy and you cannot account for the indefinite block per WP:ADMINACCT, then I request that you unblock me. AP295 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, if you can convince someone to unconditionally unblock you, they will do so, and I will take my lumps. Until then, though, my position is unchanged. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: I'm not trying to lump you. Neither of the essays cited in the ANI complaint are official policy, and so I'd like you to either explain which rule I broke and how being blocked will prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, which according to WP:BP is the only reason a block should be issued, or rescind my ban. AP295 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You are blocked, not banned. (blocks and bans are different) The reason for the block is stated in the block notice. That was prompted by a report at ANI. If you convince someone that the reason is in error or otherwise inadequate, they will unblock you. I have no other comment on this matter, good day. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: According to WP:ADMINACCT, the onus is on you to explain why that ANI report (in which I was only cited for WP:NONAZIS and WP:HTBAE) was sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban according to WP:BP. Neither WP:NONAZIS nor WP:HTBAE are Wikipedia policy. Even if they were, I don't believe my contributions bear them out. It's your responsibility to use your admin privileges appropriately, account for your actions when requested, and correct yourself if you cannot. It is not my responsibility to persuade "someone" that you made an error. AP295 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: And by the way, if this user page does not violate WP:HOST, then I'm pretty sure mine didn't either, so don't bother grasping at that straw. AP295 (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2021 (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).

AP295 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see the conversation above. The admin who blocked me has not accounted for the block with respect to my request per WP:ADMINACCT. The block seems capricious and largely motivated by a difference of opinion rather than an instance/instances of "disruptive behavior".

Decline reason:

I see plenty of examples of disruptive behavior linked in the discussions above. Decline. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 12 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.

I'm going to be as blunt as possible why you were blocked, since you haven't been paying attention: You argued that the two greatest institutional authorities on antisemitism in the US are invalid in your attempt to defend the honor of someone who's a member of a white nationalist organization, a friend of an infamous KKK leader, and an author who asserts that (((THE JEWS))) are out to destroy white people. That fits the bill for WP:NOTHERE and WP:NONAZIS, which are obviously valid block reasons in the eyes of anyone those pages don't apply to. You have been given ample opportunity to pull your head out of your ass on the off chance you're not just another alt-right troll. Instead, you wanted to Wikilawyer as if that's going to do anything but waste our time -- which I'm not going to allow anymore. Talk page access revoked. Here is where (as a courtesy) I would normally link to the instructions on how to further appeal your block, but since you enjoy looking up policy to twist it's meaning to your own ends, I'm sure you can find it by yourself (and, God willing, it will give you some time to reflect on how you have fucked up here and no one else is to blame). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: This is a shot in the dark, but if you have the time and patience would you please review this block? You're the only administrator I've encountered who doesn't seem to be preoccupied with political correctness and I'd really appreciate an objective take. AP295 (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Odal (rune) on a "All RFCs" request for comment, and at Talk:Kominato Station and Talk:DALL-E on "Engineering and technology" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Flag of Albania on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fermat's right triangle theorem on a "Mathematics" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Keller's conjecture on a "Mathematics" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #79693 has been declined. JBW (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #81553 is declined. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)