User talk:Kobayashi245

December 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Pamela Geller‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling other editors vandals

Please do not continue to call an editor a vandal. This is clearly a content dispute and if you continue to call anyone a vandal in what is obviously a content dispute I will take you to ANI and ask you to be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:VANDALISM: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Your recent editing history at Stormfront (website) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly since your first revert said (inappropriately for an edit summary)"Warning: a second revert will be regarded as edit warring" - and then you went ahead and did a second revert. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kobayashi

An editor Mikemikev (talk · contribs) has in the past been causing problems in the area of race, genetics and intelligence, making some edits that seem quite similar to yours. He was a contributor to Stormfront, and frequently expressed antisemitic opinions. He also tended to use Asian inspired usernames for his socks and write in British English as you do. So frankly I am a little worried that you are a sock of his. I am writing here to allow you to respond to my concern before I make a sockpuppet investigation where a Checkuser will be able to identify if this account is likely to be operated by Mikemikev.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can make any investigation you want, I am not "Mikemikev." My username is a reflection of the language I am studying in university, and my first additions to Wikipedia as an editor (as well as recent ones) have been on topics of the Japanese language; things that a person would know only if he/she actually studies the language. I find it funny though, that you are implying I am causing problems with my neutral edits on race.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the warning messages above this one more than imply that you may be causing problems for other editors with your edits - neutral or not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again

This is edit warring, and it's totally inappropriate. You've been warned for this already on other articles. I'm very strongly considering requesting that you be blocked. I think I'll hold off on doing that, but you need to stop edit warring on articles immediately. If you make an edit, and it is reverted, you need to go to the talk page and discuss the edit, not try to force your edit into the article through reverting. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you decided to respond to this by reverting again. You are going to end up blocked indefinitely if you continue at this rate. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:23, 29 October 2013 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kobayashi245 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: ). Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet and you didn't even read the talk section to discuss this, you simply reverted and told me to "discuss this." I already have, you have not presented arguments against.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to the talk page does not give you the right to edit war. Binksternet posted objections to the content in an edit summary, and you've received objections on the talk page indicating that there is not currently consensus for your change. What you are doing is the very definition of edit warring, and it is expressly barred by our policies on wikipedia. You were warned repeatedly, and decided to respond to an additional warning by continuing to edit war. That sort of behavior is not going to get you very far in this community. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are bs-ing again with your "no consensus." Nothing of the sort was said in the talk page.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, aprock and ArtifexMahem have posted objections to a part of your edit. Binksternet posted an additional objection (mirroring theirs, as far as I can tell) in an edit summary. That means "no consensus". Undo your change, and continue discussing it until consensus forms. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus" is the only argument you have? User Aprock has been involved in an identical dispute several months ago where he was removing the same source for no reason. The DRN favoured against him then, and now he is trying to do it again. User Maunus has not provided any argument against my addition, check again. ArtifexMahem has not done so either. Did you even read the discussion?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Binksternet's first edit summary does not make sense at all: "Revert... too much praise of Lewontin" the other one "too much questionable change" is not based on any arguments. "Too much questionable change" why, where, how?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy and Race (human classification). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2013 (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).

Kobayashi245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reverting reverts of good-faith additions that "can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue" simply because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT does not merit a block in my opinion. How am I to assume good faith when the reverts have no argumentative basis and are closer to vandalism than good faith reverts? The changes I did do not go against any Wikipedia policy, and actually improve the article, and I have discussed the addition in the talk page where nobody has argued why my addition should be removed. Two users simply came out of nowhere and reverted without discussing it first, one of them even being so "bold" as to tell me to "discuss it first." Their only argument is WP:OR, insisting that "well, that is what he said, but meant it in a different way..." and "I just don't like it..." How are my reverts of these bad-faith reverts not justified? And check again, there is no edit warring in "Race (human classification)" article by me. I made my addition, another user reverted my addition, I reverted back (this is not edit warring), agreement has been met in the talk page, another user properly made a new addition based on the agreement. Then another user came and reverted that addition which has been agreed upon in the talk, I reverted it (this is not edit warring). Another user which is also involved in the edit war/vandalism in the "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" article came by and reverted that, another user reverted. Nobody that has been reverting the additions I proposed (and have came to an agreement in the talk) has discussed and substantiated their reasoning in the talk page. How are my reverts not therefore justified? Kobayashi245 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block has expired. Kuru (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (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.

November 2013

Hello, I'm Dougweller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Race (human classification) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit-warring at Race (human classification) and personal attacks in edit summaries and on talk pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2013 (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).

Kobayashi245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I absolutely DID NOT resume edit-warring at Race (human classification) and personal attacks in edit summaries and on talk pages! Maunus did this change [1] when it clearly says in the study that only 16% of biologists reject the concept of race. I reverted BACK [2] to the uncontested version that was the status quo BEFORE, because Maunus' edit was because apparently he does not have access to the full paper and only read the abstract! After his edit got reverted, IT IS HIS JOB TO GO TO THE TALK AND DISCUSS THE CHANGES. Me reverting back to the status quo IS NOT EDIT WARRING! He did not do so, instead, he re-reverted my status-quo version [3]. User Aprock did this [4] edit and claimed it is a primary source, when it is in fact a reliable secondary source! There is also no consensus to remove that information, it is clear vandalism and removal of relevant information, so I reverted back to the status quo version [5]. It is not me who has done ANYTHING wrong. I reverted back to the status quo version, this is NOT edit-warring. In fact, I just tried to revert Dougweller's revert back to the status quo version and add compromise so that it says both that 16% of biologists disagree, which I supported with another source: Lieberman, Leonard; Jackson, Fatimah Linda C. (1995). "Race and Three Models of Human Origins". American Anthropologist 97 (2): 231–242. doi:10.1525/aa.1995.97.2.02a00030. and that 67% of biologists agree, which is mentioned in the other abstract (but also says 16% disagree in the FULL PAPER!), when you unrighteously blocked me! So do what's right, re-evaluate the situation, admit you were wrong and unblock me, because reverting to the status quo version IS NOT EDIT WARRING. Also, I never edit-warred in Race (human classification) in the first place, so I can't be "resuming" it! Kobayashi245 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Update: another user did THE SAME [6] revert back to the status quo and added the compromise, much like I intended to with the last revert when I noticed I am blocked. This block is extremely unfair and completely unjustified. Too bad he missed the obvious vandalism and suppression of information here [7] Saying this is not vandalism is like saying changing Mass–energy_equivalence to simply state E=mc^2 is not vandalism. Not to mention his completely incorrect edit summary and reasoning "this appears to be a primary source." Reverting such a useless, damaging (vandalism) and incorrect edit is actually encouraged and advocated by Wikipedia policy, and the fact I got blocked for it is pathetic, but everyone makes mistakes, so I forgive you. Oh and, "personal attacks in edit summaries and on talk pages." Please show me my "personal attacks" in the talk pages. Just making up allegations is wrong. And calling obvious wrong removal of information from an article that has been there for years as vandalism is perfectly justified. Vandalism is not just blanking a page and inserting profanities, this was no personal attack, it is calling vandalism vandalism and not sugar coating it. Unbelievable. --Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You lost me with the very first sentence. If we let people edit war so long as they believed they were right and others would support their position we might as well just forget about even having an edit warring policy. I suggest you actually read the policy and try to understand the underlying philosophy that edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. And you may also want to make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's definition of vandalism which you also seem to misunderstand. Vandalism is in fact only edits made in bad faith with the intent to harm Wikipedia, not just any change you think is wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2013 (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).

Kobayashi245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So it's better one just skips the pointless R in BRD? Yeah, makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation! Next time somebody reverts my edit that changes the status quo that was there for years, I'll be sure to re-revert and point them to "WP:BDR," and if they revert again and change back to the status quo, I will report them for trying to change back to the status quo version and they will get blocked like I was. Right? Yeah, exactly. And edits that deteriorate the quality of Wikipedia/articles and suppress information are not vandalism? Ok, good to know. Kobayashi245 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block has expired. Kuru (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2013 (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.

Just a note regarding your last comment: the blocking admin doesn't handle unblock requests. When you make an unblock request, you're placed into a public category Requests for unblock. Uninvolved admins can then look over your request and act, if they see fit. Admins will be less likely to act on your request if it seems very in-depth (requiring a lot of investigation), or the request is very dramatic and very likely to be declined. Your unblock request is very long, very dramatic, and focused entirely on other editors' behavior. This discourages admins from reading it over and acting on it. When your unblock request is acted on, it will be a declined with a message pointing to WP:NOTTHEM. If you're interested in having your request approved, or would like it to happen faster, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, and reformulate your request. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I assumed that much, but wasn't 100% sure. I guess I'll have to wait for it to expire then, because there is no way to explain it with less words and without involving others.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Helpful Advice

I know you are passionate about the changes you want to make, but you have to tone it down a bit. You have been blocked twice already and repeating the same conduct that led to those blocks will eventually result in a permanent block. You should try to avoid edit warring and snapping at editors even if you happen to feel their responses are irrational. You need to still be open to discussions and remain civil. WP:Assume good faith and WP:Etiquette.

I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the principles of wikipedia. WP:Five pillars. It would be in your best interest to familiarize yourself to it because they won't show any mercy simply because you may not be fully aware of all the rules and procedure.

This advice here is meant to help you not criticize you. You do need to tone down a bit and not repeat the same conduct that got you previously blocked or else a permanent block is likely inevitable. BlackHades (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but I don't think I'm "repeating the same conduct."--Kobayashi245 (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are. Since expiration of your block, in Race (human classification) you've made five edits, of which one was a clear revert (23:49 on 11/12). In Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy you've made two edits, both of which were reverts. I'm not blocking you at this point, but you risk being blocked without notice (other than this one) if this continues or if someone complains of your conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is making edits against Wikipedia's policy? No. [8] is not a "clear revert." Dougweller removed two WP:RS and then then wrote in the edit summary: "change url to go directly to paper, which does not mention any specific reasons." Of course it doesn't mention any reasons, the reasons are in the second paper which he removed! Since he obviously didn't check the sources, I made another edit and this time separated the two papers, so that there is no confusion. The first sentence deals with the first paper, and the second one with the second paper. This is a completely justified edit and I'm not guilty of anything other than improving the article by doing it. This edit on HGD: LF [9] is also not a "clear revert." Maunus missed the duplicate sources which I've removed. Is that against Wikipedia's policy? No. I've also reinstated the changes after WP:BRD where no objections were raised. Is that against Wikipedia's policy? Also no. This isn't a "clear revert" either: [10], the "clear revert" is the one by Binksternet, who removed the infobox from the status quo version of the article that was there for years. His reason for doing so? Edit summary: "Delete worthless infobox." Great reason! It's not "worthless," it fits in the article and was there for years. So no, he did a bold edit by removing it, and I reverted it. I did not originally insert the infobox, so he did not revert my edit, and I did not edit war by reverting it "again." I followed standard Wikipedia procedure: he made a bold edit, I turned it down. Is that against Wikipedia's policy? No. So next time before you accuse me of something, be sure to analyze the situation thoroughly before you do something rash and impulsive, thanks.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "defenses" are as misguided as your unblock requests were. My warning still stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning still stands, yes, as a "precaution," but not for my recent edits it doesn't. If there is a "next time" and you block me on impulse, without evaluating and analyzing the situation, but simply because you see "Kobayashi245" in the article edit history, I will forward your inappropriate and unjustified user conduct to the Arbitration Committee. Let's hope it doesn't come to that - neither of it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I think all race deniers are irrational, I think we can all agree on that. Let's not get passioned when we defend our edits otherwise these idiots will just use that to throw ad hominems. Beware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.26.112 (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to stop attacking other editors - especially in edit summaries

Accusing an editor of WP:Stonewalling as you did in your edit summary at Stormfront (website) is unacceptable. And once again you appear to be editwarring. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for renewed tendentious edit-warring on Stormfront (website). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 17 November 2013 (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).

Kobayashi245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False accusation. I did my edit [11], ArtifexMayhem reverted it [12] (on false grounds, he wrote in the edit summary to "go read the talk" because he thought the current discussion in the talk was about that), I DISCUSSED IT [13], after becoming aware his revert was falsely made, instead of re-reverting it, he told me once again (as in the edit summary) to "Feel free to bring your concerns to the article's talk page." This IS stonewalling, here, let me quote it for you, WP:Stonewalling: "===Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing===

See also: WP:REVEXP

Also known as BRD (note that the D in BRD is struck out, symbolizing that crucial element of BRD is avoided by this tactic), probably the most common form of status quo stonewalling is when someone who supports a change makes the edit (or move), then someone who opposes the change reverts it with an edit summary that says something like "discuss first", or "no consensus", and then does not engage in any substantive discussion about the change despite inquiries regarding the revert having been made (if neither party shows interest in discussing, of course no discussion is fine). If someone objects to an edit because he believes it is opposed by consensus, then he should explain the reasons he, or consensus, holds whatever position it is. It's unreasonable to require the person making the change to speculate about what the objection might be, and require him to address it. Reverters should be clear about the reasons for the revert." Accusing somebody of stonewalling when this is indeed the case is justified and acceptable, not uncivil. And if the block is for "edit warring," I should be unblocked, because I re-reverted after WP:BRD where the opponent had no objections (after realizing he reverted for false ones), just one more stonewalling attempt to "go talk to others about it." This is just more harassment by Dougweller who is trying to get me blocked for every minor thing, accusing me of edit warring when I have followed the BRD procedure, and properly identified a stonewalling attempt when that was the opponent's only objection. Give me a break. Also, after I made a new section in the article's talk page about it: [14], ArtifexMayhem made up a new excuse about how his revert was about something else entirely, just to try and save face instead of admitting he was wrong. The new made up excuse doesn't justify his cold revert, because he could have simply improved my edit, which is the preferred method, but he did a cold revert for a completely different reason - he thought my edit was in dispute and was/is still under discussion, as clearly seen in the edit summary to "go read the talk," when my edit was something else altogether. In short, ArtifexMayhem reverted on false grounds before he even read the changes, I discussed it, he had no objections except a stonewalling attempt to (once again) "go to the talk page." In the talk page, his new excuse does not merit a cold revert, it is just a matter of reinserting a line of text into the article, but since his real reason to revert my edit was "just because," of course he will do no such thing. And it is no wonder the person who reported me [15] does not "want to get into the content dispute," because there is absolutely nothing wrong with my edit. So this block is because one user cold-reverted "simply because," I discussed it, and later re-reverted on the basis of no arguments. Enter another user who reports me "simply because," even though my actions and behaviour was following all Wikipedia policies. Basically, I'm blocked because I made an edit that was cold reverted for no reason, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with the content - all of the content in my edit IS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE. And one last thing - writing "Revert stonewalling attempt" in the edit summary is not a personal attack, it is a comment directed at his revert, therefore the content, not the editor. Also, this is a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING by ArtifexMayhem, who has made no other edits on either the article in question or the talk page, but has been involved with me on other articles and talks, on which others users to Wikihound me include Dougweller and Binksternet, who have made similar baseless reverts of my edits (which were then reverted by other users for being baseless, go figure, eh?), which also in effect caused my other two blocks above. So ArtifexMayhem, Dougweller and Binksternet, stop stalking aka Wikihounding my edits.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Welcome to Wikipedia unblock system, unfortunately because you were only blocked for a week, i must make it indefinite instead and decline as you are clearly not here to build a constructive encyclopedia like the rest of us. Again, thank you for using Wikipedia unblock system, have a good day. Secret ^account 14:36, 17 November 2013 (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.

Hm, so you are being stalked by me and two other editors and your block is all our fault? Somehow I don't think more personal attacks are going to get you unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your and Binksternet's Wikihounding and reverts in the Race (human classification) and Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy articles are what eventually caused my two blocks. Some of those reverts by you two were later reverted by other users (after I was already blocked), and that should tell you something about how useless those reverts were, that only caused damage in getting me blocked. The same happened in this recent case of Wikihounding by ArtifexMayhem. I'll accept an apology from you three, though.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just some friendly advice...however right you think you are, multiple blocks by multiple admin are going to be upheld...it sucks cause you may be right, you may not but the cards are not up for you...I'd take the break and come back..the other option has the people escalating the blocks til you end up indef...seen it happen..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but I know I am right, and I know there is some kind of personal group vendetta against me and my edits (as evidenced by the Wikihounding), and I am not going to pretend otherwise to save myself a block. All of this is well documented, and the next time this happens I will forward the case and all involved to ArbCom.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2013 (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).

Kobayashi245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False accusation again. "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: renewed tendentious edit-warring on Stormfront (website)" If you had read my appeal you would have seen this was not the case. There was no edit warring, I followed WP:BRD. "talk page shows a WP:NOTHERE mentallity, have a good day" I am being Wikihounded, which I feel is a form of cyber-bullying, and expressing this concern on my own talk page is not something you ban someone over. --Kobayashi245 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your constant battleground attitude is not conducive to a constructive editing environment. Your non-stop accusations against anyone who disagree with you, despite warning also does not help. Show us how you're going to work with other editors to improve the articles and your unblock requests would be considered more favourably. KTC (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2013 (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).

Kobayashi245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Constant battleground? I was already blocked twice for my "constant battleground," this third block is not for "constant battleground," it is for a single WP:BRD revert that was made after the user, ArtifexMayhem, had no objection other than stonewalling. This block in a nutshell: "blocked twice before, therefore blocked again!" I was already punished twice, there is no reason to block me a third time by brining up the other two blocks. The facts are, I followed BRD procedure, and I am not just throwing baseless accusations at everybody that disagrees with me. ArtifexMayhem's revert is a clear stonewalling attempt, "straight from the book," denying that is painfully dishonest, and me rightfully writing in my edit summary "Revert stonewalling attempt" after BRD is no "battleground." It is a fact. WP:FAPO. As for my concerns regarding Wikihounding, they are justified, seeing as both Binksternet and ArtifexMayhem have never before made any edits in two articles where I was editing (they have put me on their "list" because of history on another article), except to revert me "simply because." Similarly, Dougweller has been Wikihounding my edits and has done the same reverts "simply because," except that he has also previously worked on the same articles, so this isn't a clear case of Wikihounding, as he might have had that article "on watch." However, this isn't the first time Dougweller has been accused by an editor of being Wikihounded, so I do feel I am correct in this. Not to mention some of those "simply because" reverts by Binksternet and Dougweller were later reverted by other users, after I was already blocked, proving how pointless they were. Frankly, I feel I am being harassed and persecuted by them. Expressing this on my own talk page does not warrant an indefinite block like the administrator "Secret" decided, nor does properly identifying stonewalling merit a block in the first place, not to mention the non-existence of edit warring for which I was accused. So I am essentially blocked a third time, indefinitely now, might I add, "because I was blocked twice previously." Great reason, no doubt. "Show us how you're going to work with other editors" If they apologize for their Wikihounding and the ill-founded reverts, I will accept it and leave it in the past. But I will not simply tolerate being harassed like that all the time. Note that this has nothing to do with the initial block, which was supposedly for "edit warring and personal attacks in the edit summary," both of which are false accusations. My conduct has not violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline since my second unblock, so this block is completely unjustified.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Repetitive and abusive unblock requests. I am revoking your talk page access. If you wish to appeal, you should follow the instructions at WP:GAB (it's in the lead) for when you can no longer post to your talk page. Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2013 (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 would suggest reading the advice I gave you last time again, and read WP:NOTTHEM. Kobayashi, if you have any desire to come back to editing in the future, stop posting unblock requests immediately and take a breather. Come back to this with a level head tomorrow. Your most recent request is going to be declined for the same reason, and one of these times your talk page access will be revoked too for making the same request repeatedly. I'd suggest removing it right now so that doesn't happen today. Seriously, take a break and come back. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to write an appeal without mentioning the persons involved. This last block is because user ArtifexMayhem did a cold revert of my edit, which I've discussed with him, and he had no valid objections except stonewalling: [16]. Of course I am not happy that user Dougweller reported me for "edit warring and personal attacks," when this is not the case. See the BRDR I did and tell me if that is worth blocking a user over (or even reverting): [17].--Kobayashi245 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making an appeal; the situation has been reviewed by a large number of uninvolved administrators already. You are making an unblock request. Read the guide to appealing blocks, particularly WP:NOTTHEM. If you don't follow my advice, above, your request is going to be declined and your talk page access will be revoked (either this time or soon after). Remove the unblock request, take a break, and come back later. I can't give you better advice than that. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how making an unblock request after a short break will get my indefinite block unblocked any sooner, nor do I see how saying "I've learnt my lesson, sorry" after a couple of days will help, since everyone involved has already decided anyway, so they will simply object, "simply because." If the unblock request isn't accepted or the block time isn't lowered to the initial 7 days, I will take this to ArbCom, because, let's face it, there is no way I will ever get unblocked otherwise.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]