User talk:Ms96

Ms91, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Ms91!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

IRANPOL GS notification

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully read this before, wish I could say the same about you (; Ms96 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did you read this? You haven't received this notification before AFAIK.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page!! The best part was your reply "So you copy-paste this message without attribution? Please provide details about what template you used to post this notice. Thank you." !!! :) Ms96 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing is important. At the end of the notification there is a hidden comment that says , this is the attributing. There was no attributing in that admin notification in my talk page. It turned out that the admin who posted that notification is the creator of the template. Attributing is important because all text in English Wikipedia is protected by this license.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, Creative Commons ... must be interesting!!!! MS 会話 23:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you accuse another editor of "vandalism" and of "lying" you will be sanctioned. Don't do this again, please. El_C 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C So let me ask only once more, was he not lying?! So help me understand which English word is used now? Also, see [1], [2] what are these? MS 会話 15:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For accusing that editor of "lying" in your very next edit, you have been blocked for 48 hours. I'm not sure where you're getting that they're lying about Farsi being their mother tongue (evidence only in the form of diffs, please), but I view it as a provocation. Please feel free to launch an unblock request, but you should really read the guide to appealing blocks closely first. El_C 15:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep accusing them of lying while blocked, I will revoke your talk page access. I'm not sure what you expect me to learn from those two diffs — whatever it is, I don't get it. El_C 15:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C No I'm not gonna ask for unblock, but I don't understand "where you're getting that they're lying about Farsi being their mother tongue". What I meant was that while his mother tongue is Persian (same as me, what provocation?), he tries to deceive other users by claiming that the content is not supported by the provided source. You mean the edit I made in my talk page by "next edit"? MS 会話 15:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs show he is disruptively deleting whatever he desires. WP:CoI. MS 会話 15:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alos take a look at his block log and its reason.MS 会話 15:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean your next edit after this very warning. Stop making use of bad faith terms like "lying" and "deceive" — you are not getting it. Assume there was an error rather than an intentional attempt to mislead. Please stop ~~refactoring~~ responding constsntly so that I can reply. El_C 15:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What conflict of interest? What disruption? El_C 16:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen my talk page and hence your message before that edit. MS 会話 16:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just go for any random edit by this user to see how harshly he's supporting the Iranian government and eradicating any single negative issue thereof (also the reason and the page that he's blocked in). Those two diffs are examples of his disruptive pattern, simply removing any well-sourced, correct material. MS 会話 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is being disruptive, a well-documented report on the Admin noticeboard is your next step. El_C 16:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't help that. And yet you continue with "deceive" even after you were aware of the warning. The point is that you went about resolving this content dispute the wrong way. I'm not saying they are without blemish, either, but the whole "vandalism," "lying," "disruption", "deceive," "uw-disruptive" templates — that was the wrong way to go about it. El_C 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C Yes, I wish all of that was error, but errors don't happen that often. He kept insisting on that issue for 2-3 days and repeated his speech like 4-5 times. MS 会話 16:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. Please just wait between responses for me to reply. I'm getting tired of all these edit conflicts. El_C 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C Though I hadn't seen my talk page and hence your message before that edit you mentioned, I personally think you were right in blocking me. Anyway, I didn't mean to be rude by any means. Also, sorry for wasting much of your time here. Feel free to ask any questions if any of what I said is not clear. MS 会話 16:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I just think you need to follow the correct procedures: for possible disruption (ANI) or for a possible conflict of interest (COIN) rather than resort to these problematic, poorly-documented shortcuts which are far from a substitution to substantive reports. El_C 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C I reserve reporting to ANI as a last resort. But aren't these personal attacks [3], [4]? Just a bit confused. Could you please bring this RfC into conclusion as well?MS 会話 09:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I decline to further engage that RfC in any way, due to SharʿabSalam's related attack on myself — for the moment, I want as little interaction as possible with them, in general. But you may list it at ANRFC, if it isn't there already. As for those aforementioned purported personal attacks by Saff V., I'm not seeing any in those diffs you cited, so please quote directly. El_C 16:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I meant he has a habit of mentioning the number of users' edits. Forget about it. MS 会話 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus in Iran/Saff V.

Hello, I just wanted to mention how the Wiki page about coronavirus in Iran has been hijacked by a group of Iranian users (or multiple alternate accounts of the same user, it is quite possible) attempting to censor the misgivings about Iran's obviously fake numbers on the coronavirus epidemic there. The lead sections, for instance, contains a line referring to a 2 March WHO statement claiming that there was nothing wrong with Iran's numbers, which is outdated and contradicted by more recent WHO statements that claim that actual numbers are likely five times higher. Attempts at updating this, deleting that outdated and incorrect claims, have been sistematically reverted by these users, that have also deleted several lines and links referring to outside sources that estimate a far heavier toll in Iran. Iran claims to have far less cases than Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and the USA, and less deaths than Italy, Spain, and France (soon enough the USA as well), despite the outbreak in Iran starting at the same time as Italy and much earlier than in the other countries, and Iran not implementing a national lockdown unlike them (on the contrary, Iran early on denied the outbreak and held elections anyway). So, a few days ago I reported these users, one of which is User:Saff V. who has already been blocked for vandalism and non-neutral edit warring on Iran-related wiki pages, for edit warring on the Administrators' page, and? I got blocked immediately, without even a discussion! --Pesqara (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions alert for Covid-19 related pages

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 17:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date", but did you see any problems with any of my edits? MS 会話 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice re White genocide conspiracy theory

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.

(I am not singling anyone out. I am notifying any of the last three editors to that talk page if they have not been notified in the past year.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. MS 会話 18:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! take a look at the talk page and add whatever you consider necessary instead of using these useless warning tags. You could also start by actually taking a look at the links you just provided above. Thanks. MS 会話 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this post useless is a problem. You are re-imaging the entire article and forcing your version in. WP is built upon consensus. You do not have consensus for these major changes. O3000 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully read WP:DEMOCRACY. And of course, WP:EW because you apparently have no idea what warring actually is. If you see any problems with 12 references that I had provided, you're free to express your concerns in the talk page of that article, not here. MS 会話 20:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop telling me to read things I have read many times in the 13 years I've been here. By pointing me to DEMOCRACY, you are merely declaring that you are right. I have looked at your sources and commented. I have expressed my content concerns there, not here. I have expressed my conduct concerns here, not on the article TP, according to guidelines. I used an info template instead of a warning template as you have few edits. You have not violated WP:3RR. But, you are edit warring. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were actually zero users favoring the removal of the content you deleted. I just want to mention you'd better give up trying to "build everything upon consensus", in general. Worth noting that one of your "content concerns" was, among others, that reverse racism "is pushed by the current POTUS". You really need to chill out buddy. MS 会話 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to the status quo ante. You must stop edit warring with multiple editors, and your proposed changes must be discussed on the article talk page and receive consensus there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The status quo ante is certainly where we are right now, MS96, but I wanted to point out that your insistence on reverting to your own version, rather than my more moderate version that immediately preceded the removal of the new material, suggests an IDONTHEARTHAT attitude that does not contribute to effective collaboration on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial Because, your more moderate version contained doubts about the existence of reverse racism, and used the word "alleged" for it. However, the last source I provided clearly states: "most agree that some cases of reverse discrimination exist" on page 2948. MS 会話 04:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where one RS states that reverse racism "exists", and many many RS state that reverse racism does not "exist", we cannot state in WP's voice that it exists, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% agreed with this first logical argument I've come across here within days. Will try to find more sources though. MS 会話 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse racism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reverse racism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been in the past 4 days? Have you even bothered taking a look at the talk page at all? Do you have any objections to the sources? or the discussions? MS 会話 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I took a 4-day vacation on Mars.) See WP:DEADLINE Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like an exhausting business trip though. MS 会話 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super-secret space business, you understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But keep in mind the new spaceships are anything but safe. MS 会話 22:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fool me, that's not a space ship, it's some spaced-out shit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation made my day. Thanks!MS 会話 22:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Hi. Not sure which edit you mean, please specify. MS 会話 10:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I've read it multiple times, have you?" When someone asks you to read something and your response suggests that they themselves have not, that shows a lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!! Thanks. MS 会話 11:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet Please explain for everyone and for the sake of keeping some record, which of my edits "means that I am repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be". (Note that you should provide more than 1 edits, since "repeatedly" automatically implies a number greater than 1.) MS 会話 18:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is a standard template. The wording is boilerplate stuff, lacking full applicability for all recipients. I don't apologize for the wording or endorse all of it. Here's the point, though: the act of putting it on your talk page is a required step of getting you blocked for disruption. It's a sharp warning to stop disrupting Wikipedia or else the organization will take protective measures by blocking you. That's the important part. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BinksternetThanks for this reply which is an obvious evidence that you have a weak, if any, understanding of the meaning of edit warring because "An edit war occurs "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" (the very first sentence in that page). All I did was some civil discussion. Sure you are not forced to apologize, no one needs it.MS 会話 18:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, you have 399 edits, and Binksternet has 329,000 edits. Who would you suspect has a better grasp on what edit warring is, on general principles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typical mean and empty argument made only for the purpose of personal attacks. This isn't anything new to me. MS 会話 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "you have a weak, if any, understanding of the meaning of edit warring" is indeed a "mean and empty argument", and perilously close to a personal attack. You should watch that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things won't change as long as the left breeze sweeps through WP. This warfare I am under without crossing a single red line or even approaching it is a clear sign that freedom of non-profit organisations in a Western democracy is a complete hoax (MSpiracy theory). I said it to another user today; now I say it to you and all other stalkers: have fun with your falsehoods. MS 会話 19:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank you for making it abundantly clear that your editing is controlled by your personal political ideology, and not by the relevant Wikipedia policies, which is what (the vast majority of) the rest of us follow. You're welcome to the warmth and comfort of your personal conspiracy theory, and your rather bizarre thought patterns, but your efforts to tilt Wikipedia away from reality and verifiable facts towards your preferred beliefs are not welcome, and will continue to be countered at every opportunity. We're here because we believe in Wikipedia, you're obviously here for other reasons entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"tilt Wikipedia away from reality and verifiable facts"(Citation needed) Beautiful lies. Stick to them. Deprecate Telegraph. Occupy Fox. Forgive my bizarre thought patterns. Have fun with your majority. MS 会話 20:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not "majority", WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: ..."the vast majority of"... by Beyond My Ken, in A Tribute to My Left Fellas in the Talk Page of the Carcass of a Canceled Rural Psychopath, 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC). MS 会話 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ms96, don't be a timesink. Respect consensus[5] and tone it down a few notches. And you should not use the word "retarded" in such a cavalier way. Try to be respectful. Stop editing disruptively. El_C 21:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C All you said is true. A great help for me again. I deleted that word. Could you please do me another favor and read User_talk:Ivanvector#I_synthesized_disparate_sources_to_suggest_a_conclusion_the_sources_do_not_state? I would appreciate you if there is any possibility that you delete that part of the comment saying "it misrepresents the sources given, synthesizes disparate sources to suggest a conclusion the sources do not state" in the talk page of that article and I'm gone. It's a libel. I didn't do that. MS 会話 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ms96, please don't use legal terms like "libel," because it comes across as a legal threat. As for your WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I would advise you to withdraw, because you are risking sanctions at this time for editing tendentiously about a subject that falls under discretionary sanctions. El_C 21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C A legal threat against ... myself? Anyway, I don't challenge that closure; all I say is to change that comment, quick and dirty. (Absolutely irrelevant and maybe not worth spending time to read, but apparently some people can call others liar, boldly.) MS 会話 21:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should try Conservapedia. They're not nearly as fussy about verification and factuality as we are, just as long as the political slant is right, and you seem to have that down pat. But don't try for anything creative, it doesn't appear to be your forté. ("A Tribute to My Left Fellas in the Talk Page of the Carcass of a Canceled Rural Psychopath", OMG that is just so, so ... so utterly, incredibly, bad.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fix a ping

You have to make a complete signed new post. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I didn't know. Thanks MS 会話 18:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Ms96 civil right-wing POV pushing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

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 ~~~~}}. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:36, 12 July 2020 (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).

Ms96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For whoever reads this:Please spend time and thoroughly read the links provided and ask me for clarification if anything is unclear. I answer to the accusations in the ANI [6] one by one:

(1) "They're one of a seemingly endless string of accounts coming to the page to advocate for including irrelevant demographic statistics to this article on a batshit crazy white supremacist theory that Jews are conspiring with government agents around the world to exterminate the white race"

No. I've been here since 2014. The exact change I wanted to make is well summarized in User_talk:Ivanvector#I_synthesized_disparate_sources_to_suggest_a_conclusion_the_sources_do_not_state (please put time and read carefully; the sentence and its sources also listed below) ALL I WANTED TO ADD IS BASICALLY A WORD-BY-WORD COPY OF SOURCES, WITH VERY FEW CHANGES.

Sentence: "Some research suggest that fears of white extinction are provoked by demographic shifts, since the white population is in decline in the US and Europe".
psmag: "New research finds that such fears are provoked by demographic shifts" [7];
guardian: "Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries"[8];
powersearch: "In the United States, the white share of the population is declining" [9].

And now I understand WP is not for adding material based on sources, but whatever 'consensus' likes.

(2) "a loose legal threat": What I said was this: "accusing me of synthing and misrepresenting is a libel" [10]. No idea how it's interpreted as a legal threat. "Libel" is not a word exclusively used in the legal context. I, by no means, did not intend to make any legal threats and if anyone feels that way they'd better reconsider their definition of both words "legal" and "threat".

(3) "On Reverse racism, Ms96 made a bold edit to the article's lede stating bluntly that reverse racism is a real social phenomenon, rather than the sourced consensus that it's alleged by conservatives as an attack on affirmative action programs, or the zero-sum white supremacist belief that all societal gains by non-whites come at whites' expense, basing their edit solely on the existence of discriminatory policies against whites in Zimbabwe"

Please spend time and read Talk:Reverse_racism#Mugabeism_in_Lede. I simply did not try to base my edit solely on the existence of discriminatory policies against whites in Zimbabwe.

"Few deny that reverse discrimination is sometimes caused by preferential policies, and most agree that some cases of reverse discrimination exist in which a white male has unjustifiably been excluded from consideration and has a right to compensation." [11] (page 2948).
"our results provide the strongest evidence so far that racial preferences operate and reverse discrimination is practiced in the undergraduate admissions process at the University of Virginia. Reverse discrimination by the numbers, Lerner et al.. There are many other sources:
What is Wrong with Reverse Discrimination?;
The Unresolved Problems of Reverse Discrimination;
The Reverse Discrimination Controversy. A Moral and Legal Analysis.;
Reverse Discrimination as Unjustified;
LIMITS TO THE JUSTIFICATION OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION, etc.

NONE of this opposite view is reflected in Reverse discrimination (please put time and take a look) and now I'm blocked because of pointing out the crystal clear non-neutrality of that article?

Other than that, what I added was almost exclusively about Zimbabwe [12]. I haven't even made any attempts to add these sources to the article yet. I gathered these after searching for more sources when an editor rightfully pointed out that there must be more sources to support the claim that reverse racism is a real social phenomenon [13]. I mean, while it is real, I have not pushed this claim and only added some content about Zimbabwe.

(4) See Far-right_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Current_(2010–). The first sentence in this section, exactly under the title is "See also: Right-wing terrorism". Please explain, isn't it POVly implying that that the far right politics in the UK from 2010 onward is terrorism?

(5) "On Racism in Zimbabwe, the edit summary in this revert speaks for itself: Your actions in white washing the issue of racism against whites is strikingly alarming". So what does it speak? One user deleted the whole article [14] deeming it somehow unnecessary or non-notable and I reverted it [15]. The article is now alive, and even better than what it was. (The same user tried to delete information from 1804 Haiti massacre [16].) What did I do wrong? Was that article non-notable? unnecessary? Shouldn't I have reverted their edit? Should it be deleted now?

(6) On Talk:Black_Lives_Matter#Why_is_Marxist_not_even_mentioned_in_the_article?, they're pushing for the organization to be labelled Marxist in Wikipedia's voice. They claim to have sources but what they really have is a novel synthesis based on sources identifying various BLM "leaders" as Marxist. Several editors have rejected this but they're still going as of today. I claim to have sources? Maybe because there are many, many sources (If you mean that Amazon Createspace book, I immediately apologized for it; see my comments in item (8) below) . have you actually taken a look at that discussion?

Several editors have rejected this? And several have not. I didn't even start that discussion. "as of today"? I joined that discussion today! I actually made 2 edits ([17] and [18]) there (and 2 typo edits), all of which were made 'today'.

(7) "in response to being warned about edit warring for reverting my close they responded by attacking the editor who warned them". GOD! It's in front of your eyes! User_talk:Ms96#July_2020 I was warned for 'edit warring' for actually making ONE edit? Yes I made personal attacks ... TO MYSELF! "A Tribute to My Left Fellas in the Talk Page of the Carcass of a Canceled Retarded Rural Psychopath" whose talk page is here? I though it was mine!!! I want to call myself "a Canceled Retarded Rural Psychopath". I call myself whatever I see fit! "a comment directed at a named user"? You mean Ms96?!

(8) "the source they cited to call BLM Marxist is a hyper-McCarthyian conspiracy theorist work asserting that Marxists have been infiltrating the government and that their influences" True. I apologized for my fault immediately after I realized it was published through Amazon's Createspace [19]. So I don't think "That alone should result in at least a topic ban from all political articles".

(9) Wondering how Ian.Thomson is boldly and shamelessly pointing out their extremely unfair and harsh personal attack (If you continue completely lying about the contents of articles, that's gonna make it hard to see you as here for reasons other than building an encyclopedia [20]) on a new user with 3 edits, two in an article's talk page and one in 2010 winter olympics opening ceremony. An editor whose talk page didn't even contain a welcome message, but was decorated with two consecutive warning messages in less than 10 minutes. See my reply to Ian: [21]

(10) "use of slurs and PA's" YES, BUT AGAINST MYSELF!!!

(11) "the suggestions of topic bans in multiple areas"? By who? User:SharabSalam? who retired himself when he was on the verge of TBANs in multiple areas [22] and thinks Israeli sites are mostly unreliable [23] and COVID-19 started from Sweden and France [24]?

Or Doug Weller who posted this alert in 16 June, 1.5 months after my last edit in that area in 6 May and refuses to clarify their grounds for this action? (I have most likely less than 15 COVID-related edits in total)

I was blocked "Given the suggestions of topic bans in multiple areas, the clear POV-pushing and conspiracy nonsense, and their cavalier use of slurs and PA's, I have simply indeffed them for WP:NOTHERE". "topic bans in multiple areas" by SharabSalam and Doug Weller after 1.5 months "Does the existence of these alerts automatically mean I edited disruptively? "clear POV-pushing and conspiracy nonsense" Did I ever say White genocide conspiracy theory is real? Have you actually read what I did or decided merely based on what others implied I did? "cavalier use of slurs and PA" Against myself?

I spent time and answered all accusations against me. I was wondering if the reviewing admin would mind putting time, reading them thoroughly and answering all these cases one by one MS 会話 07:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

1) I read all that, I honestly did.

2) I am not going to respond to your points one by one (and I can assure you that you won't find any other reviewing admin who will either).

3) This request does not convince me that unblocking you would be to the benefit of Wikipedia, and ultimately that's all that matters. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2020 (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.

You expect me to believe this edit was self referential? Assuming it was, the use of the R-slur is still super not chill. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "putting time, reading them thoroughly and answering all these cases one by one". Wait a minute, whose "talk page" were we arguing in? Mine, yours, or his? Yes it's not chill and that's why I deleted it quickly after El_C pointed out [25]. MS 会話 08:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ms96, Excuse me for not wanting to answer every one of your 11 point agenda, I have other things to do ya know. If the reviewing admin would like to do so, they can, but don't expect it. We're just volunteers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it was already pretty obvious regarding your super fast track indefinite block, not even bothering to check to whom were those "cavalier use of slurs and PA" referred to. And you're still pinging me in my own talk page? I swear were on my talk page, no one else's. MS 会話 08:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you immediately apologized for the book being published by Createspace, that you thought to cite a hyper-McCarthyian conspiracy theorist work blaming the New Deal, the War on poverty, Black Islam, and the Civil rights movement on some sort of Marxist conspiracy demonstrates that you completely lack the competence necessary to edit articles relating to history, politics, or race. If you want to apologize, apologize for not having the sense to realize that book is garbage. The only way I can begin to see you getting out of this is agreeing to a topic ban relating to politics and history after 1932.

Also, if a user says something that is obviously false but also demonstrates knowledge that reality is contrary to their statement, what else would you call their statement but lying? That has been repeatedly shown, and your attempts to reinterpret things in that users favor amounts to little more than gaslighting. Though your choice in sources on history, I suppose it's a pitiable given that you'd do that. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I DID NOT CHECK THE CREDIBILITY OF THAT SOURCE and did not know it was "a hyper-McCarthyian conspiracy theorist work ..." which are my faults and I apologized for that. I have no intention to use or even read it, in fact.

See User_talk:Ms96#Warning. "what else would you call their statement but lying" this is the exact argument I made and was blocked for a week immediately afterward. Your answer is also there, as El_C said "Assume there was an error rather than an intentional attempt to mislead". Please don't try to justify your absolutely unjustifiable "welcome" message to a newbie with 3 edits (repeatedly?) MS 会話 08:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to argue that you cited a source you knew nothing about, that you didn't even examine in any way beyond luckily finding the one page you wanted to cite? This is supposed to demonstrate competency on your part, how? Oh, wait, no, you cited page 368, a page that's not available on either the Google Books or Amazon preview. Oh, but we can see the table of contents on Google Books and Amazon, and we see that page 368 is the beginning of chapter 18: "Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty/Great Society: The 200-year Plan for Black Americans to Keep Marxists in Power," a chapter that explains how AmeriCorps, the Head Start Program, Section 8 housing, and Medicaid are Marxist tools. If you do not own the book, what toilet did you pull the citation from? If you do own the book, how did you find the info you needed to cite without discovering that the book is utterly insane garbage? I don't actually care, there's no answer you can give to those questions that will help you besides "wow, yeah, a topic ban from history and politics is for the best."

You getting in trouble for seeing different politics as a lie is not the same as me pointing out a demonstrable lie as such.

Also, (edit conflict) the reviewing admin is in no way obligated to engage in a dialogue that creates the appearance of justification or argument that creates the appearance of "winning". They are not obligated to let you control the conversation by shifting the blame to others. Your content-based claims have been addressed repeatedly on the relevant article talk pages. The reviewing admin is only obligated to judge whether CaptainEek was justified in responding to the ANI thread with an indefinite block and (assuming the block is correct) whether your appeal indicates any chance that your behavior will improve. Given that multiple experienced users support the block and so far only you oppose it, it's safe to assume that the reviewing admin see it as justified. Your appeal makes no indication whatsoever that you are really aware that your behavior needs to change, merely customary lipservice to the idea at most. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page does appear in google books for me. I think it might hide random pages at different instances, maybe for different IPs, I have zero technical information about that. I am willing to email a screenshot of it in the google books to you or anyone else, per request. I just googled something like black lives matter+marxism and it appeared. No I don't own the book. Repeating for the nth time: I do not want to use that source, and I apologized minutes after I realized the mess I had made.

Pray tell, Where did I obligate' anyone do anything? "Content-based claims"? I exactly responded to all points argued in the ANI thread, did I not?

Also feel free to use as many "oh"s as you want. Just please have in mind that keeping this section tidy could actually help keeping the small chances of its fair review alive. MS 会話 09:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ms96, I'll spare you the discourtesy of declining your request. I will leave that likely outcome for another admin. Your request is too lengthy and scattershot. It is too WP:NOTTHEM. If I were you, I would redraft it, by greatly trimming and condensing. You need to display an awareness of the overall problem and a willingness to commit to correction. That's it. A full account with all the details of all the disputes is not needed. El_C 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee I appreciate the time you put, thanks. El_C Thank you for your suggestion, your words have always helped me. Yes I do understand that I didn't act in the most appropriate way. I'm especially regretful about the last edits in my talk page before being blocked which were, obviously by mistake, taken as personal attacks against other users and played a major role in the subsequent events including the Indefinite block implemented on my account. I surely do understand that these words, regardless of being against me or anyone else or even no one, are absolutely not appropriate for here, or anywhere else. I actually would like to delete them from my talk page asap, but I feel that might be taken as some sort of "hiding" something at this point. Despite not pushing for any sort of conspiracy (if there are, anyone is welcome to provide a diff; I actually had 0 edits in that article and never even made any claims about the reality or unreality of that theory) and not using any sort of slurs (except against myself, which I genuinely regret), I think distancing myself from those topics for some reasonable time is for everybody's benefit, including me.MS 会話 07:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One guy gets only 72 hours for this and I get 48 hours for calling some one a liar (100% exactly like Ian and even less harsh) and now indefed for using "R-slur" against myself in my own talk page (which was obviously mistaken to be against someone else)? Where did I push for a conspiracy theory please provide a diff. When did I use slurs against anyone other than me please provide a diff. When did I make a legal threat please provide a diff. When did I edit war on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory please provide a diff. Have I even edited the article itself? If yes, please provide a diff. And I highly appreciate that Boing concluded that those accusations, at least, don't "firmly" convince them to indef me [26]. Feels like a divine court MS 会話 10:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I called someone a liar, it was because they made statements that were demonstrably false, statements that implied that all editors working on an article were lazily pushing some sort of POV to cover up an atrocity. That user has since admitted that their statements about the article's sourcing were completely wrong although claiming it was a mistake in a way that raises other concerns about their ability to read and write. That's not what you did. You accused someone of lying while working for Iranian government, because they speak Persian. You didn't just call someone a liar (like I am calling you now for insisting you were got blocked only for calling someone a liar) -- you made racist and paranoid personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2020 (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).

Ms96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do understand that I didn't act in the most appropriate way. I'm especially regretful about my last edits [27] in my talk page before being blocked which were, obviously by mistake [28], taken as personal attacks against others (while I was 100% referring to myself) and played a major role in the subsequent events including the Indefinite block implemented on my account. I surely do understand that these words, regardless of being against me or anyone else or even no one, are absolutely not appropriate for here, or anywhere else. I actually would like to delete them from my talk page asap, but I feel that might be taken as some sort of "hiding" something at this point. I have not pushed for any sort of conspiracy (if there are, anyone is welcome to provide a diff; I actually had 0 edits in that article and never even made any claims about the reality or unreality of that theory) and not used any sort of slurs (except against myself, which I genuinely regret). It is said that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, but it's exactly the opposite. I have previously proven my good faith in collaborating with others [29], admitting my faults [30], and unhesitatingly accepting logical arguments [31]. I'm doing my best to present a proper yet short overview of the story. If anything is ambiguous or unclear, please ask me for further clarification. Thanks. MS 会話 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2020 (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.

If anyone does decide to review this, please first see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#User Ms96 civil right-wing POV pushing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire activity at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory is you politely pushing to include information that would only be relevant if the conspiracy theory was true. This was explained repeatedly by a variety of users, but you didn't listen. You kept going. In that topic, that alone should be enough for a block. And while you say that citing the conspiracy theorist work "Don't Believe the Hype" was an accident, even if we take that face value and ignore your activities at Talk:White genocide CT, that episode would just raise severe concerns about your competency to identify reliable sources instead of one more concern about what sort of POV you want. However, those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive -- someone who agrees with a certain POV (even if they imagine they're being neutral) is going to gravitate towards sources that align with their POV. (This is actually expected to a degree among almost all editors, but that's why WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH describe behaviors considered disruptive no matter how politely the person doing those things imagines they are). Whatever the case there (incompetent accident, accidental POV-pushing, or willful POV-pushing), that event in light of your attempts at Talk:White genocide CT to include material that would only be relevant if the CT was true (no matter what anyone said), plus your strong feelings about anti-white racism, plus your racist attacks on another editor... regardless of how much you try to play Iago as a sympathetic tragic hero, you're still playing the villain until you choose a different role.

In short: Telling us the card says "MOOPS" doesn't help when all your actions are public record here. The only way out of an indefinite block at this point is to agree to a topic ban from (at a minimum) politics, (better yet) history also, if not race as well. No matter how much you want to be non-racist, your strong feelings about anti-white racism (which is globally and and historically insignificant compared to the atrocities committed against black people) are resulting in edits that white supremacists see as support for their ideology. If that is not your intention, this should be a learning moment for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, why don't you actually put time and read everything correctly before making comments? I appreciate that you say I was polite, I really appreciate. But, please explain how "Some research suggest that fears of white extinction are provoked by demographic shifts, since the white population is in decline in the US and Europe". is "information that would only be relevant if the conspiracy theory was true"? From which part of this sentence do you make that conclusion? Other than that, isn't it the exact sentence in an RS (New research finds that such fears are provoked by demographic shifts)? No this was not explained to me by other users. Among people who objected to it was Summerphd who said it was WP:IRRELEVANT. That's not what I think; another user also thinks so [32]. Objective3000 objected to this because "There is no white race. The concept that it is heading toward extinction is racist" [33] and you said that "The idea that there's a meaningful decrease in white people because of interracial marriages (a belief in the white genocide conspiracy theory) assumes the racist myth of the one-drop rule."[34]. Maybe my brain doesn't have enough capability, but I see no relationship between these two arguments and that specific sentence. I have also asked you "pray tell, how it's related to the discussion above and what it's supposed to imply?" [35], which you refused to answer. You know what, as long as I have proper RSs and no logical arguments against me is provided, I continue to edit, even if that means confronting one million opposite views (with zero logical argument).
There are no "severe concerns" about my competency to identify reliable sources. I promise I am 100% capable of that. I've been doing this for my whole life. The point is that I hastily jumped into that talk page and it all turned out to be a serious mistake. I have already apologized for that like 5,6 times. Please read WP:SORRY. Also keep in mind that I only added a sentence to an article's talk page. I pay a lot more attention to the credibility of the sources when I want to add them to the articles themselves.
"your strong feelings" ... Thanks for providing this diff so that everyone can judge if Sangdeboeuf's action in deleting the article was appropriate or I was right in undoing it. (Another related diff is [36] where the same user tried to delete information from 1804 Haiti massacre, which I also undid).
Yes, I hate reverse discrimination. Many other RSs [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] and people hate it, too:

[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! ... [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.
— Justice Clarence Thomas, United States Supreme Court, GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER et al.(2003) No. 02-241

"racist attacks"? My mother tongue is also Persian, hon (have a glance at my user page). What I meant was that while his mother tongue is Persian, he tried to deceive other users by pretending that he couldn't understand a Persian source (I explained everything long ago in User_talk:Ms96#Warning). And it turned out that I was correct (the whole story is here).
Have you just called me racist and paranoid [42]? "raises other concerns about their ability to read and write"? Enough personal attacks, Ian. You are the boldest, rudest, and most shameless admin I have so far come across. Please leave if you want to continue this way; better for everyone. "all your actions are public record here" That's like a heavenly gift; just imagine what you would have accused me of if it wasn't the case. After all, I do agree that I should have shown more respect toward the consensus. I actually admitted to this before being blocked. MS 会話 08:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

After almost 3 weeks, I think it's time that someone takes some actions. This indefinite block was unquestionably based on misunderstandings [43]. The whole ANI section didn't even last for half an hour and I got a super-fast indeff for what? (the worst part is someone, two days after on July 14, saying "User has continued their diatribe on their talk page, might be time to revoke TPA." after a serial of PAs where an admin who thinks I am "try[ing] to play Iago as a sympathetic tragic hero" called me "racist" and "paranoid", questioned "my ability to read and write", and asked "what toilet" I pull citations from).

Yes I do accept I edited tendentiously, and immediately stopped after El_C warned [44] (before my ban). I promise I will refrain from this sort of editing.
I did not push for any sort of theory at all, provide diff if there is any.
I did not attack anyone (other than me, for which I have previously, even before block, expressed my regret). "directed at a named user, whose name I purposely omitted" in the ANI thread also indicates another "misunderstanding". It was clearly directed at me. I have not attacked anyone. By the way, I will never again use any sort of slurs against even myself, as said in my request.
I have already expressed my regret multiple times please explain if anything else is necessary.
I did not "edit war". I undid only 1 edit [45] in the article's talk page and had exactly 0 edits in the article itself!
I have also provided links proving my good faith in collaborating with others [46], admitting my faults [47], and unhesitatingly accepting logical arguments [48].
I do accept I have a POV, everybody does. But, not complying to the POV of the majority, including several admins and a multitude of experienced users (my talk page had 300 PageViews, equal to Jimbo_Wales, on July 12!) doesn't mean I should die. Hopefully this is not meant to be a "preventive" action, to put me under the most extreme pressure for my POV so that even after I get through this, with regard to the tiniest odds, I would totally forget about touching the areas others don't like. I do respect consensus, I do understand I should not have used those words against me, and I should not have edited that tendentiously. Thanks. MS 会話 12:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, Ivanvector I'm OK with a topic ban on US politics; Could it be non-indefinite but long? Like 9 months or 1 year or more, unappealable. I'm simply not looking for more drama, which includes asking for the ban to be lifted. I'll be contributing to BLP, books, geography, probably Iran-related issues, among others. I should have dropped the stick and not edited that tendentiously. I think I have already said what I had to. Genuinely appreciate if anyone could end this. MS 会話 20:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an another admin wishes to unblock, they may go ahead, but a politics T-Ban is a must, I prefer indefinite. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I think you're being much too lenient in not objecting to another admin unblocking. The aggressive attitude that Ms96 is projecting here is highly indiciative of the type of editor who will continue in tendentious editing if they're unblocked, with or without a politics topic ban. I do not think that Ms96's personality is conducive to editing in a collegial project such as Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: You'll note I'm not going to unblock them, because I think they're a problematic tenditious editor who is making this a battleground. I'm not endorsing an unblock here, merely saying that another admin can use their judgement without needing my input. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think "I do not think that Ms96's personality is conducive to editing" is the last in a serial of PAs against me by BMK. The extraordinary amount of harassment, hounding, and stalking is also striking. "Non-constructive" would be the most euphemistic description of their attitude with this regard; wondering if they could avoid any further interactions with me. MS 会話 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I admitted that I had edited tendentiously, and I endorsed a TBAN. That's all I could do at this point. I'll do my best to avoid even marginally unnecessary interactions and drama. MS 会話 22:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New unblock request

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).

Ms96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. After a few months of being away from all that heat and giving thoughts to my actions, I am again requesting to be unblocked. I perfectly do understand that I shouldn't have acted that tendentiously and would not engage that furiously in any issue whatsoever. I said everything necessary in the best way I could in the previous request and I'm not repeating it here, so I only quote the diffs showing my good faith in collaborating with others [49] and unhesitatingly accepting logical arguments [50], among others. These are not typical of NOTHERE users to the best of my knowledge, but exactly the contrary. Again, if there are any ambiguities or questions, please ask me to clarify. Thanks. MS 会話 19:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. As a note, "see my previous request" does not usually work because if your previous request had been compelling, you'd be unblocked by now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2020 (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.