User talk:CarpathianAlien

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

- -

CarpathianAlien, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CarpathianAlien! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, CarpathianAlien, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Disruptive editing

Your recent edits in Recreate Greece are unhelpful and seem to rely on sources published over ten years ago [1]. A lot has changed since then whilst the article is currently backed by reliable academic references. If you want to bring up a topic, please use the talk page of the article. Accusing others of propaganda is not a viable way of contributing to WP. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources used to label Recreate Greece as "far-right" are from 2012, one from The Press Project which is a known left-wing publication. The third source is from a publication from a known left-leaning NGO which has been frequently criticized for its partisanship. My use of Kathimerini, DW, and LSE (academic source) are much more likely to be non-partisan than the sources used to label the party as "far-right". Moreover, the stated ideas of the party itself, align closely with conservative liberalism — the point here is to be *factual*, not use labels based upon *perception*. Please avoid using unsubstantiated sources and making accusations of "vandalism". This is not conducive to building an independent and non-partisan Wikipedia. Thanks. CarpathianAlien (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are 10-year-old articles that require renewal - The Press Project can go, but the credibility of the other sources cannot be disputed under any circumstances. Either seek consensus on the talk page or please stop your disruptive editing - what you are doing now is pure vandalism that can lead to suspension. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just, did you just use a Communist website as a source to substantiate your calling Recreate Greece a "far-right" party? Another point to the fact that you have no idea what you are doing and how to source non-partisan opinions. CarpathianAlien (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your complete lack of knowledge or understanding of ideology makes it easy to dismiss anything you dislike as communist. If you are referring to Professor Vassiliki Georgiadou, one of the top Greek political scientists globally, as communist - then you should have a quick reality check before editing on WP again. Until then, you have been warned - any further disruptive editing will lead to suspensions. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude are you blind? The website itself calls itself Communist. Jesus Christ why are you allowed to edit pages on Wikipedia when you support mis- & disinformation. You need to be banned from Wikipedia ASAP. CarpathianAlien (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Recreate Greece shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chip3004 (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chip3004 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Petitioning to be unblocked, as user User:The Blade of the Northern Lights seems to be applying preferential treatment towards User:NikolaosFanaris, as they did not block said user, despite they also attacking me personally, with their attack preceding mine. In addition, said user is now attempting to ridicule & provoke me (diff) CarpathianAlien (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You were blocked for what you did, not for what others do. If someone is attempting to provoke you, don't take the bait. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

OK — have re-reviewed the guidelines cited by User:331dot and better understand the process now. I do not deny the personal attack towards NikolaosFanaris. As editors, we need to do better, and even in the midst of provocations, we need to be able to stay composed. I have to say that Talk pages are not intuitive to use, but after this experience, I am acquainted enough with them now to know to take any disputes/disagreements there. In case of personal attacks, the best approach would be to seek a dispute resolution, not to attempt to retaliate. Understood. Given that this is my first block, I would like to petition for my unblocking. Thanks.

EDIT: editing to pump up my unblock request. Thanks.

Decline reason:

This unblock request sounds good. But then I looked at your edits. Dude, the last thing we need on Wikipedia is more bickering about politics. If you want to edit articles about adventure games or coming-of-age books, OK, that's fine, and I'll unblock you. I started the article Gods with a Little G. It's a coming-of-age story for teenage girls, I think, with LGBT characters. I'm not really too clear on the specifics because I couldn't care less about the novel. A newspaper article about the book popped up in a sidebar while I was researching something else. I wrote that Wikipedia article mostly because nobody else was going to do it, and it seemed like it'd be easy. I've also started a bunch of articles on adventure games. I don't like adventure games, but nobody else was doing it. I also edit articles about Southeast Asian TV celebrities. Same deal: don't know anything about it, don't care about it, nobody else was doing it. Wikipedia is a huge project, and there are many topics that need attention. If you're really here to improve Wikipedia, I suggest you find something to edit that will help Wikipedia, not something that will gratify you politically. If you're really here to edit Wikipedia rather than argue about politics, you can pick a topic like anime in India or whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment: User CarpathianAlien deliberately attacked me in previous edits with a common narrative often seen on Wikipedia nowadays. By labelling opinions as communist (or leftist) and accusing others of propaganda, users like CarpathianAlien push their own version of reality through baseless and unfactual information. Even his latest request to be unblocked was preceeded by a number of comments (now deleted), asking for the suspension of my account [1] and requesting administrators to intervene because I "somehow" initiated the attacks [2]. This kind of contribution harms Wikipedia's integrity and thus, I recommend against unblocking users like CarpathianAlien. I was targeted and attacked by them because they wanted to push their totally fake narrative about an established Greek far-right political party (Recreate Greece) in an attempt to sugarcoat its ideology. Thank you in advance for your time. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can find the earlier discussion here, as well as the stage where User:NikolaosFanaris personally attacked my ability to perceive reality, implying that this makes me incapable of editing [1]. Moreover, in that same conversation, User:NikolaosFanaris did concede that one of the sources used before was not credible [2]. Regarding labeling a source "Communist" one can verify that by simply running a Google Translate through the page, observing that the very website itself, in its header, proclaims that it works "For Communist Renewal"^[1].

In addition, the removal of my previous comment on this page [3], was removed because it does not add any value and is beyond the workings of the unblocking process. That said, yes, if unblocked, I will bring User:NikolaosFanaris's behavior to the Administrators Noticeboard, requesting the blocking of his account for personal attacks [4], as well as taunting, following my blocking [5]. Thanks again. CarpathianAlien (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.epohi.gr/article/42594/eklogiko-apotypoma-kai-emfoleymenh-akra-dexia

Re-issuing my unblock request, as the previous request is nearing 1 week of wait time. Previous unblock request comments follow: "OK — have re-reviewed the guidelines cited by User:331dot and better understand the process now. I do not deny the personal attack towards NikolaosFanaris. As editors, we need to do better, and even in the midst of provocations, we need to be able to stay composed. I have to say that Talk pages are not intuitive to use, but after this experience, I am acquainted enough with them now to know to take any disputes/disagreements there. In case of personal attacks, the best approach would be to seek a dispute resolution, not to attempt to retaliate. Understood. Given that this is my first block, I would like to petition for my unblocking. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarpathianAlien (talk • contribs)

Carpathian, if you're adding additional detail to an unblock request, just add it as a new bulletpoint at the bottom - you should only have one appeal open at a time. Additionally, "bumping" appeals does nothing - the page which lists open appeals orders them alphabetically and Wikipedia rarely handles things in queue order anyway. There's only a double handful of admins who handle most appeals as well, so waiting a couple of weeks is quite common. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should note for any reviewing admin, that this would appear to be an instance where, yes, NF did have some faults (and their comments above should be viewed in that lens), but CA was correctly blocked and I couldn't come to a clear conclusion on what might clear up the ultimate question...what is likelihood of CA reoffending, both normally and when in a high-tension dispute. Whatever comes, I'd suggest 1RR and a specific article ban or two. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear, thank you for your input, it is appreciated. I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that I have not previously had any such incidents, and I have not been previously blocked either, so an indefinite block does seem harsh! Thank you. CarpathianAlien (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's common to solicit the opinion of the blocking admin, I explicitly leave all discretion to the reviewing admin. I have no objections to a decision either way, and I'm watching this page so you don't have to go out of your way to notify me. Unless I make an oversightblock (which is not the case here) I don't have a problem with an administrator taking any action related to any of my admin actions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Issuing another appeal, after a denial by NinjaRobotPirate. I find NinjaRobotPirate's reason for denying my block appeal to have no merit (happy to disregard the condescending style of NinjaRobotPirate's response.) and to have no relevance to the reason I was blocked for. An unblocking is not meant to be conditional on what an Editor wants to contribute on. What I want to contribute on is my decision. Unfortunately, Politics pages on Wikipedia are rife with biased editing. Given the effect Wikipedia can have on shaping public opinion, it is very, *very* important to enable diverse voices to participate in editing Wikipedia. If NinjaRobotPirate would also review the particular case of my block, he can clearly see that the other editor I offended (which is of course my bad) used a particularly biased source (a Communist website). By retaining this block, the use of biased sources is, willingly or unwillingly, rewarded. My primary interest being in politics has absolutely *zero* bearing on my willingness to contribute to Wikipedia and to help source pages with the least biased sources I can possibly find. Being coerced into changing my topic of contribution is really not the way to go. The learning area for me here has been to move over to Talk Pages to discuss issues, seek consensus, and in case this cannot be reached, seek mediating help. And I am very happy to do that — but being denied an unblock because of my topics of interest, seems to be an abuse of power. Thank you for your time. CarpathianAlien (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In this very request, you can't help but attack other editors. If you wish to be unblocked, I would suggest making a request that addresses your behavior, and your behavior alone.

I would strongly recommend that you read the guide to appealing blocks before doing so.

Unfortunately, at this time I believe that this block is still necessary in order to protect the project. SQL ^{Query Me!} 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 have already made an unblock request that solely focused on my behavior, and it was denied for reasons not related to my block, but rather because the reviewing Administrator did not like what I am interested in. Unfortunately, I am unable to highlight this in any other way while remaining blocked & it is highly likely that issuing the same unblock request would have been deemed as spam/disruptive. I have read the guide to appealing blocks a couple of times by now and it is clearly stated that I need to share relevant information as reviewing Administrators might not have the time review all of the background. Given that the reason my request was denied by NinjaRobotPirate could not be addressed in any other way while I remain blocked, while it still remains relevant to why I remain blocked, this seemed like relevant background that needed to be provided. CarpathianAlien (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to restate that I do not deny the personal attack towards NikolaosFanaris. As editors, we need to do better, and even in the midst of provocations, we need to be able to stay composed. I have to say that Talk pages are not intuitive to use, but after this experience, I am acquainted enough with them now to know to take any disputes/disagreements there. Additionally, I would like to highlight, that yes, one of my interests is in politics, and given how ideological editing on politics can be, my goal is to help source pages with the least biased sources I can possibly find. The overall learning area for me here has been to move over to Talk Pages to discuss issues, seek consensus, and in case this cannot be reached, seek mediating help. In case of personal attacks, the best approach would be to seek a dispute resolution, not to attempt to retaliate. Understood. Given that this is my first block, I would like to petition for my unblocking. CarpathianAlien (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining as stale only; you may make a fresh request if desired. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Re-freshing my request after being declined as stale: I would like to restate that I do not deny the personal attack towards NikolaosFanaris. As editors, we need to do better, and even in the midst of provocations, we need to be able to stay composed. I have to say that Talk pages are not intuitive to use, but after this experience, I am acquainted enough with them now to know to take any disputes/disagreements there. Additionally, I would like to highlight, that yes, one of my interests is in politics, and given how ideological editing on politics can be, my goal is to help source pages with the least biased sources I can possibly find. The overall learning area for me here has been to move over to Talk Pages to discuss issues, seek consensus, and in case this cannot be reached, seek mediating help. In case of personal attacks, the best approach would be to seek a dispute resolution, not to attempt to retaliate. Understood. Given that this is my first block, I would like to petition for my unblocking. CarpathianAlien (talk) 7:23 am, 29 July 2022, Friday (14 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

after discussion with blocking admin-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

Looks adequate to me. @The Blade of the Northern Lights: What say ye. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, I trust your discretion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. CarpathianAlien (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.

You returned to battleground behavior immediately after being unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lmao. You people are beyond saving and a case in point in why people should not receive unchecked power. Selectively applying policies, not accepting criticism, conversing in bad faith, creating a toxic environment by mocking other editors and wanting them to placate to whatever you deem correct — all under the guise of "protecting the project"; you are not protecting any project, you are protecting your ego while destroying Wikipedia. Good luck & keep it up. CarpathianAlien (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice to have unchecked powers but we don’t. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if there is any toxicity in the environment, you are the source. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW

When we block an account, we usually HARDBLOCK the IP used. That's to reduce WP:BLOCKEVASION. You owe a bunch of people apologies. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.epohi.gr/article/42594/eklogiko-apotypoma-kai-emfoleymenh-akra-dexia

[1]