93.179.211.169

Accusations of slander

Please avoid making claims that articles are "slanderous" - this could be interpreted as a legal threat. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please consider yourself notified that I will be raising concerns about your legal threats to WP:AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for making legal threats. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm afraid I can't post a proper ban appeal due to automated(?) filter. Please see this pastebin. https://pastebin.com/g37UXLcY I'd just like to add - my ban was voted for with total of 1 vote and concluded in less than 15 minutes. Is this true neutrality? (15:45-15:57)

 93.179.211.169 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, see below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 13 June 2019 (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.

.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

 Administrator note I have pasted the user's request which was posted to https://pastebin.com/g37UXLcY under that site's CC BY-SA 3.0 license. I have also reformatted the numbered list. Appeal begins below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

---

After reverting dishonest edits regarding ONR's modern incarnation, user Simonm223 instead discussing it with me, got into an edit war instead. This greatly perplexed me as I gave him sources as for why I reverted it. I then substantiated it with links here and here. User again, instead of discussing it with me, turned a deaf ear to everything I said and called moderation, which promptly banned me without questioning whatsoever.

I will try to keep this brief, so excuse poor formatting:

1. I believe both the user and moderator in question cannot put their personal feelings or politics behind them and take a neutral stance towards the page. After reading through both Simonm223's and El C's user pages, I've come to realize that they're both socialist or some variation of thereof - this is why I'd like a purely neutral moderator to review this.
2. Simonm223 reverted my edits on basis of one article citing an opinion of the Ombsudman(? pardon the translation if incorrect, the position in question is Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich - Citizens' Rights Spokesman if I were to translate it). I cited two seperate sites, citing two seperate instances of a Polish court ruling ONR not guilty of promoting fascism. Keep in mind this is not a subjective opinion, but objective fact they've been declared not guilty.
3. All my edits were in good faith. I seek honesty in the article. An edit on Michael Jackson's page stating that he is a pedophile would be immediately reverted - he was not declared to be one in court. ONR was not declared a fascist organization - it's outright lies and intellectually dishonest to claim so.
4. The reason for the ban - I never said anything along the lines of suing wikipedia or making legal threats whatsover. I am not in position to do so - I told this to Simonm223. I simply stated that I was considering informing ONR that English wikipedia page on ONR brands them as fascist. This does not constitute a legal threat. I am not ONR. I am not associated with ONR.
5. Minor issue - Yes, I am anon, are anon users worth less than registered ones? I quote "Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers. You do not need to register to do this. Anyone who has edited is known as a "Wikipedian" (commonly referred to as, simply, editors) and, no matter how trivial the edit may seem, can be proud that they have helped make Wikipedia what it is.

I am still here in good faith, I hope both ONR page and this ban is resolved finally by a neutral moderator. 93.179.211.169 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:51, 13 June 2019 (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.

The fact you call two users "socialists" and use this to try and undermine their credibility is going to cause this appeal to fail (you need to read wp:npa).Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 has socialist user tags on his user page. 93.179.211.169 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × several) I'm not going to process this, but some points:

1. Block appeals which contain personal attacks are often summarily dismissed. I can speak for neither, but even if Simonm223 and El_C would not consider your "socialist or some variation of thereof [sic]" comment a personal attack, it seems clear that that's how you intended it. Please retract that portion of your appeal. See also WP:NOTTHEM.
2. You claimed in edit summaries twice that material was "slanderous". Slander is a crime in the United States (where Wikipedia's servers are located) and in many other jurisdictions, and your threat to report alleged criminal activity to an organization that could take legal action meets our definition of a legal threat. You must explicitly retract this threat, or you will not be unblocked. It matters not whether you are "in a position to do so".
3. Generally speaking, we balance the opinions and statements of disparate sources to establish a neutral point of view, which means we seek an ideal of describing things as they are, according to reliable sources, absent our own biases and opinions. If you have a source stating that a court declared that ONR is not a fascist organization, you can discuss how that can be incorporated in the article, recognizing that several other sources have declared that they are a fascist organization. You don't get to pick the interpretation that better suits your political views.

I hope that helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify for total transparency what you meant about Simonm223 having access to the computer you use, Ivanvector? As it stands, I have no reason to believe you are neutral. Likewise, I never made legal threats. Never said I will take anyone to court. 93.179.211.169 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no reason to be neutral, as I have not done anything here. Your ability to read my user page about a thing that happened ten years ago is wholly unimpressive, beyond it painting you as a person who thinks that intimidating people by seeking out their personal information is an acceptable practice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I take back what I said about the ban denial - I just now noticed it has been re-pasted and not wholly denied. Apologies. In my defense, obtuse wiki formatting makes things hard to read. 93.179.211.169 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I could have explained that better, yes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you recall what message you received that prevented you saving your appeal in the first place? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I don't even know what the article is about and am unfamiliar with its content. Likewise, I was unfamiliar with the content of the dispute. I only attended to the legal threats per se. Had this user been registered, I would block indefinitely. Because they're not (and someone else may need to use this IP at some point), I only blocked for a month. Anyway, naturally, I reject the user accusation that I wasn't (or somehow even cannot) rule in a manner that detached from my own views, but that's a non-issue anyway, due to my ignorance of the subject. El_C 16:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

IP, I suggest you step away now, you are about two posts from a longer ban and withdraw of talk page access.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban appeal 2

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Pardon my persistence but when I said "neutral moderator" I meant someone who's not friends in real life (with reportedly access to his personal computer) with a user who has requested a ban for me. Archive link to Ivanvector's user page - appeal moderator. I believe this is greatly unfair and demeaning to neutrality of wiki. 93.179.211.169 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC).

Decline reason:

Procedural decline again. I have not moderated anything, I copied your pastebin appeal below and it remains open for someone else to review. One appeal is enough, do not open more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 13 June 2019 (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.

jpgordon rejected your appeal, not Ivanvector.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

---