Tholzel
Blocked indefinitely edit
You have been blocked indefinitely because this account was only being used for advocacy of race hatred, contrary to the purpose of our project. Your creation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#David_Irving was just the last straw; when I reviewed your edits this year it was apparent that none of them in any way improved the encyclopedia we are trying to build. Instead you seem to be here to advocate for your own point of view and to argue with other users. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can do this; Wikipedia is not one. Be off.
If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --John (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Tholzel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My last discussion on the David Irving page was to point out the undue weight given to a quote by Gerry Gable. The editor agreed and took it out. Then I was blocked indefinitely for "race-baiting." I don't follow the logic of that.
2. I have been trying to introduce a SINGLE positive literary review (by Gordon Craig) to the huge trove (4600 words) of negative commentary, which effort again angered the editors.
3.I had conducted numerous word-counts and other content analysis of the Irving article showing the previous 84% negative to 6% positive comments which, as I noted was far more negative than the Wiki commentary on Stalin. This and other comments gave reasoning to reduce the article form 16,000 words to 9600, but it angered the editors, one of whom blurted out: "We can't put in anything good about Irving."
4. I would like to know where the incendiary "race-baiting" complaint comes from. Perhaps it is my request to identify Gerry Gable, who burgled Irving's apartment (and who is not identified in any way) as a British Jewish political activist, former communist and editor of the Jewish anti-fascist newspaper The Searchlight. This information obtained from a fawning interview of Gable in an Australian Jewish newspaper.
5. Finally, the sock-puppet complaint is new to me. At one time I added material from my office computer before I knew I had been temporarily banned, for which I apologized. Then, a Peter Cohen accused me of a list of quasi anti-Semitic rantings on a web blog-not identified—-but which is not my blog as the subjects he mentioned are not any I have ever written about. When I complained to the editors, they ignored me and said nothing publicly to Cohen. Is that one of the sock-puppet complaints? I wish I knew. Tholzel (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2011 (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.
Tholzel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have merely asked to be shown where I sock-puppeted, and where I race-baited. No answer has been forthcoming, so it is impossible for anyone to tell if I have greviously erred, or it is my opinions that have become greviously unpopular, and blocking is my punishment. It is surely not a satisfactoiry answer to have blocking editors to simply agree among each other that I am a pariah.Tholzel (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As Toddst1 notes, reaction to your block at ANI is, so far, uniformly positive. This is sufficient for me to be confident that the blocking admin's assessment of your conduct is correct. Sandstein 19:44, 8 April 2011 (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.
AS anyone can see, the editors repeatedly refused to address a single issue I raised in my defense. Primarily because their behavior is motivated by sheer pique at having their biases so trenchantly exposed. But they all agree I am to be banned. Convicted without being charged—and no cross examination allowed. So what's the point of this farcical "review" process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.97.107 (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Email not appropriate edit
As your block was endorsed by the community at ANI, I do not have the power to unilaterally overturn it. I suggest you contact Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System if you wish to unblock me. Either way, please stop e-mailing me. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)