User talk:Nozoz

Hello, Nozoz, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm Sheldybett. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eva Bartlett, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sheldybett (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bartlett page

The Eva Bartlett page has the following editing restrictions:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification.

Stop edit-warring on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Seraphimblade What is this and why have you posted it on my page? Not only have I never edited the Arab–Israeli conflict page, but I also have never even read it. What new underhanded nonsense are you trying to pull? Nozoz (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nozoz, as the alert says, it relates not just specifically to the Arab-Israeli conflict article, but also any subject related to that, such as the article about Eva Bartlett. The notice is not a sanction, it is just letting you know that the article is covered under discretionary sanctions (basically, stricter scrutiny), and that editors who edit in those areas can be sanctioned more easily should they not adhere to Wikipedia editing or behavioral standards. For the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, you may not edit that area at all (including Bartlett's article) until you have reached 30 days and 500 edits. I realize that you were not aware of that before, but now you are and will be required to adhere to that restriction. Additionally, the Bartlett article in particular is subject to a one-revert restriction. Again, at the time you made your reverts, you didn't know that and you won't be sanctioned for that, but you are now aware. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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 think this one is still missing in your collection. This will probably be the last Ds alert on your talk page, block notices are about to follow.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block notices... for what? I haven't been violating any editing rules recently. Nozoz (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see, we do not just run around to post Ds alerts at random pages. We give them when we see that a user is doing soimething wrong, even though it does not necessarily blockable at this stage. You managed to get three alerts, for three different areas, which means that for whatever reason you are attracted to highly controvercial areas, and your editing there is not ideal. I have seen this editing parrten a lot, though you are the first person I see with three Ds alerts at the same talk page, just one after another. My message is that unless you start editing very carefully (something you are not currently doing) or move to uncontroversial areas your account is likely to be blocked. Edit-warring in controversial topics is not really what we need to stimulate here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the crux of my question to you, which is that I didn't violate any editing rules. I didn't engage in edit warring - which begs the question: therefore what is the purpose of the message? The last page I edited, which I think you're giving me this message regarding, has a 1RR rule imposed on it. I reversed an edit 1 (one) time in accordance with the page's edit rules, while also opening a discussion on the talk page for that page. I did not engage in edit warring. Therefore, there isn't a "pattern" to be seen regarding my editing, and there's no basis for you to claim that I was not editing carefully enough. I edited in-line with Wikipedia's rules. Nozoz (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you say is factually incorrect. You have introduced a bad edit, and, when this bad edit was reverted, reverted the revert.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. What I said is correct, and you've just confirmed it. I introduced an edit - not a bad one, but a good one and one that is substantiated by the discussion I have made for it on the article's talk page. Then, when that good edit was reverted by someone else, I reverted the revert, utilizing my allowed 1RR for that page. Frankly, you are speaking nonsense and trying to rationalize the nonsense you're speaking with words that confirm that I am correct and you are wrong. Now we have it confirmed: I didn't violate any Wikipedia editing rule. You not liking an edit that is backed with sources and which has been explained far better than your removal of it, doesn't make it a bad edit, and it doesn't make the edit wrong (my edit is factual), and it doesn't take away my 1RR permission for that page. Your argument, which is a non-argument, only indicates that you are not an impartial party but are acting in bad faith - which is clear throughout all of this. Nozoz (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You of course may keep your opinion that you were editing in full accordance with Wikipedia policies. However, this is not your opinion in this case which matters, but, if you decide to repeat this editing pattern, an opinion of an administrator who is going to decide whether to block your account.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't require your permission to continue editing. However, your opinion that I made a bad edit that (though it is inarguably actually a good and fact-based edit, which I made in completely good faith using NPR and BBC as sources, and which I opened a talk page discussion for where I've explained the situation perfectly [though I also explained it in detail in my edit comment, adding a link there as well], which you've ignored), does nothing to explain or excuse your posting of whatever it is that you're doing here, where you're ignoring that I didn't violate any of Wikipedia's rules, while you're faking an appearance as if I did - which begs the question, why are you posting here at all? You've only proven that you are abusing Wikipedia and attempting either an intimidation tactic or to leave a false impression as though I've violated a Wikipedia rule, when I haven't. Does this tactic work for you often elsewhere without you getting called out on it? Is that why you're attempting it now here? Nozoz (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Nozoz and discretionary sanction notices at your service.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reminded of Ymblanter in the Administrators' noticeboard that "receiving a DS alert is informational, not evidence of wrongdoing. If the evidence of a problem is that they got 3 of them in one year, then there is no evidence of a problem". I have also pointed-out there that one of these D-notices is from Ymblanter, themselves, and that the other two are from the same edits on the same page that were made at the same time and so are not separate D-notice events. Nozoz (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nozoz, the edit warring and POV editing that led to the warnings is the evidence of wrongdoing. Your card is marked, sunshine. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you're missing the point that I didn't engage in edit-warring or POV editing. Nozoz (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point that you did. Multiple administrators have told you this. If you continue to fail to acknowledge that, I'm going to have to conclude you're not here to work with the community. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are simply without understanding of what the discussed topic is about. It is not about the edits made on Eva Bartlett's page over a year ago. It is about a single edit I made recently on the page for RT, and a threat of a ban for making a since properly-sources edit and a single revert - and a threat of a ban for editing in-line with WP's rules. I did not engage in edit-warring. Nozoz (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 29 August 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I made a good-faith and properly-sourced edit to the page for RT, which I explained in the talk page for the RT WP page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Calling_RT_state-controlled_is_unsubstantiated,_personal_opinion,_and_contrary_to_the_determination_listed_the_US_government's_own_registration_of_RT_as_a_foreign_agent

Following my edit, it was reverted by someone. I then reverted their revert while commenting why and providing a link. The RT page has a 1RR rule on it, and I did not press nor intend to press my edit further beyond that point. However, admin Ymblanter threatened me with a ban, citing three D messages on my talk page - one of which they had just put there, and the other 2 being redundant to the same edits I made over a year ago.

When I pointed-out to Ymblanter that I hadn't violated any WP rule, they created an Admin Notice Board request that I be blocked based on, it seems little to nothing more than the fact that they didn't like the edit I made on the WP page for RT, and that there is, after they added one, 3 D notices on my talk page. The full discussion of Ymblanter's request is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Nozoz_and_discretionary_sanction_notices After a while, admins Guy and Ian.thomson came and started making claims of me denying that RT is propaganda.

But whether RT is propaganda or not was never a part of my edit and had nothing to do with the threat of a ban over having three D notices on my talk page. I also never once opined on that matter. After I pointed-out to Ian.thomson that their responses have nothing to do with the topic, and showed that their examples of supposedly questionable editing were them mischaracterizing of those edits and my behaviour regarding them, they just said they didn't have time to deal with this and banned my account. They also wrote on my use profile talk page that I was engaged in edit-warring, and I pointed-out to them that the current discussion has nothing to do with edits from 2019 that and that I haven't been engaging in edit-warring.

Really, I made one good-faith edit to the page for RT, and when I had reverted someone who undid my edit, I didn't touch the page again and didn't try to force my edit onto the page. I acted in accordance with WP rules and didn't try to vandalize or ruin or change any page, or engage in fighting with anyone - but Ymblanter decided they wanted to get me banned over pointing-out that my edit was in-line with WP's rules and so there wasn't grounds to be threatening me with a ban. My offence here was being bold enough to make an edit, and then to point-out that I hadn't violated any WP rule when I was threatened with a ban for making a bold edit and having three D-notices on my talk page. What justice is there in that?

The responses I've received from Ymblanter and Ian.thomson are not fair or honest, and Ian.thomson made no effort to learn what the discussion was about before they acted. It seems to me that they had already decided what outcome they wanted, and they just wanted to steer things towards that outcome. Every example of me pointing-out that what they were claiming and what they were criticizing wasn't what the topic and threat of a ban were about, they just took as denying wrongdoing - but Ian.thomson's literally were not related to what the discussion was about or what caused the ban request. If a person is accused of leaving the milk out on the counter today, and they explain that they didn't actually do that, are they denying wrongdoing when they point-out that examples of running a stop sign some years ago are irrelevant to the topic of whether they left milk out on the counter?

An example of what Ian-thomson alleged was an example of my wrongdoing is this: "At Doping in Russia, Nozoz throws out the assessment of four news sources (including the NYT and the Guardian) for his interpretation of a primary source. Note that Page 70 of that source literally says "Prof. McLaren stated that the total number of individuals who were implicated in the doping and cover-up scheme was likely to exceed 1,000," and after the bit that Nozoz cherry-picks."

But none of that is true: I didn't throw-out any assessment or text from the page, I merely added the further development that McLaren, the source for the initial claim, then back-tracked on the claim during court hearings. I didn't remove the text presenting the initial claim, and I didn't do anything to it other than add that McLaren later clarified he didn't mean it as a fact. That's a properly-sourced, factual edit, but Ian.thomson claimed it was an example of me doing wrong. And in another example, he claims I censored Eva Bartlett's falsehoods and praised North Korea. Neither claim is true, though my edit was removed anyway, and I haven't been fighting to have it restored. Ian.thomson's allegations against me are baseless. I haven't shown an unwillingness to work together at WP (is being threatened with a ban over making a bold edit, and pointing-out that no WP rule was violated, a sign of unwillingness to work together - or is making a ban-threat based on no violation of WP's rules a sign of being unwilling to work together?), and I followed the proper procedure in making my edit on the RT page and didn't pursue my edit beyond what the WP rules allow. This matter was over me saying that Ymblanter didn't have grounds to threaten me with a ban over making an edit in-line with WP rules, and over having 3 D-notices on my WP page (one that they added, and the other 2 being redundant) - and that's basically it. Everything else that's tacked-on is just a witch-hunt searching for pretext to do what Ymblanter stated in the Admin noticeboard discussion was his goal: To get me banned.

I have no intention of foul-play at WP, and I didn't engage in edit-warring or any other action contrary to WP's rules and aims in order to receive all this hostile action, first from Ymblanter and then Ian.thomson who either had no idea what the discussion was about or just didn't care. I hope that the ban will be undone and that I can continue to simply edit in-line with WP's rules, and while not behaving aggressively towards others as these people, Ymblanter and Ian.thomson, have behaved aggressively, without provocation, towards me. And while the Admin noticeboard is a lengthy discussion, I hope that it will be read in its chronological order and not glossed-over like Ian.thomson may have done, to see the actual progression of the discussion and the motivations of the original ban request. Thanks, - Nozoz

Nozoz (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a WP:WALL of text. It seems several admins have responded, and this is not a suffucient unblock request. I recommend you wait a few weeks as EEng has suggested, and that when you return you formulate a concise request which acknowledges your fault. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:45, 8 September 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.

A note to any future reviewer, that although there was an ANI discussion, ultimately it was specifically closed by an admin not acting off a fully concluded discussion - that is, it's not a CBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following up from that, although they were strictly speaking blocked through "unwilling to work with the community", most of the actual arguments to block in the discussion are based off two things: CIR, and Nozoz' severe inability to engage and, if not be calm, at least calmer during the ANI discussion. The former, imho, does not appear clearcut enough to warrant a block (though DS TBANs might have been applicable). The latter is by far the most major concern - it isn't really considered in the insanely lengthy unblock request. Nozoz assumed 100% wilful abuse from the off and escalated the discussion rapidly. I may leave this for another reviewer to follow-up on. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear. I must point-out that your assessment isn't accurate, either. I did not assume wilful abuse from the start - I instead asked what a ban would be for and pointed-out that there's been identified no WP rule which I'd violated. When Ymblanter repeated that he was issuing the ban threat over my having three D-notices on my talk page (one which he'd just put there, and the other two being from the same edit), while saying "Edit-warring in controversial topics is not really what we need to stimulate here", I pointed-out that I hadn't been engaging in any edit-warring. And when he then went-on to allege that I'd made a "bad edit", the reversion of which I reverted just one time, I pointed-out that my edit wasn't a bad one, though it might not be agreed with by some, and that a single revert on a page with a 1RR rule isn't edit-warring. And when Ymblanter then said that if I continue to "repeat this editing pattern", that an admin will block me, I pointed-out that there isn't pattern, that I haven't violated WP's rules, and that Ymblanter's constantly shifting rationalization for the ban threat and persistence of the ban threat does nothing to explain what it is based on and would justify it. Only then, after 5 comments from Ymblanter (including the one in the RT edit history), where they could not explain the basis for the ban threat while continuing to shift their rationalization for it, did I accuse them of admin abuse. And then they requested a ban on the admin noticeboard page. So, I did not assume bad-faith from Ymblanter from the get-go, but that emerged across many comments of not receiving an reasonable explanation of what the ban threat was based on, but only an ever-shifting rationalization for it.

When you suggest I have responded in a manner that isn't calm, I think you're missing the forest for the trees. When I was given a ban warning, I had done nothing wrong. When I pointed-out that I had done nothing warranting a ban-warning, I had done and was doing nothing wrong, but was correct in my assessment - attested to by the admin response on the noticeboard discussion. When Ymblanter requested that I be banned in response to the aforementioned actions, I had done nothing wrong. When Ymblanter was told there was no evidence of a problem based on their allegation, and then they continued to try to defame me, I had done nothing wrong. When I pointed-out that Ymblanter was being dishonest in using as the basis for their request for a ban, a claim that they'd noticed I "managed to collect three DS alerts" (despite that Ymblanter had put one there themselves, and the other 2 were from the same occurrence), I wasn't doing something wrong. So, I'm in a situation that wasn't of my creation and in which the fact of the matter is that I didn't engage in any wrongful conduct @Floquenbeam: "We say, over and over and over, that receiving a DS alert is informational, not evidence of wrongdoing. If the evidence of a problem is that they got 3 of them in one year, then there is no evidence of a problem. If there is actual evidence of a continuing problem - which for all I know there might be - then please provide it."

And when you comment on the "insanely lengthy unblock request", or my explanations in discussion, keep in-mind that the length of my explanations (which are actually being given calmly) is merely a reflection of the number of inaccurate and false claims directed my way in pursuit of achieving a ban against me. Nozoz (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this is not a CBAN. Nozoz's history consists mostly of pushing some sort of fringe (often RT-style) POV, and then arguing about it at length. Of their 236 pre-block edits

~69 relate to arguing at length that RT isn't influenced by the Russian gov't (citing a source that supports the claim that RT is hiding influence from the Russian gov't)
~82 relate to pushing an RT-esque POV at Eva Bartlett, including pushing against a clear consensus at WP:BLPN

So, without even digging deeper, we can see that about two-thirds of their edits were tendentiously pushing a fringe POV. Their censorship in the Doping in Russia article shows that even when their unnoticed edits are still likely to be problematic. Their reaction to everything has been a constant accusations of bias on everyone else's part, arguments that they're the only ones interpreting primary sources correctly over professional sources, and responding with quantity over quality in the face of rather damning counterarguments and clear consensuses. The only other solution I see would be to topic ban them from articles relating to Russia, which would include most of their edits so far (except maybe List of data breaches, which I will admit otherwise appear to be good edits and make up about a tenth of their edits). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very false characterization. The large majority of my edits are not on topic pages but in talk discussions, and discussing edits and information is not a sign of wrongdoing. I have not argued that RT isn't influenced by the Russian government, but that available information doesn't substantiate a claim that it is controlled by the Russian government - citing authoritative sources on the matter. But I haven't attempted to edit the RT page outside of the WP rules. And the large majority of my edits concerning Eva Bartlett are on the talk page. I don't have to agree with a group's conclusion on the matter, I just have to respect the rules of WP and the consensus despite what my own thoughts are - and that is what I've done. But some of the information on the page for Eva Bartlett is confirmed false (such as her trip to North Korea being sponsored by the government), and many people have pointed-out that the page is really an attack page. But it's guarded by a certain group. Regardless, I have respected the consensus even though I disagree with it. Nozoz (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also haven't been pushing fringe POV and I certainly did not censor anything on the page about Russia doping - and I also addressed this in my ban appeal. I merely added a newer development to the page, giving a proper source for it with that source being McLaren's own testimony in court, with the court's own document being the linked-to source. Therefore, an edit which is neither fringe nor problematic cannot indicate that other edits are likely to be problematic. And this has been pointed-out to you multiple times already, Ian.thomson. So, I think you're angling for something here. And since you're the person who imposed the ban saying you didn't have time for the discussion, I don't think you're an impartial party here. Nozoz (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say the point is, Ian.thomson? The person who initiated the ban request, Ymblanter, stated their point was that I "managed to collect three DS alerts, in different topics, in a year. I them warned them that if they continue, they could be blocked" (though, Ymblanter created one of those D-notices prior to their threat of a ban, and the other two are concerning the same edit). And the response to Ymblanter's point was: "We say, over and over and over, that receiving a DS alert is informational, not evidence of wrongdoing. If the evidence of a problem is that they got 3 of them in one year, then there is no evidence of a problem". And my response to Ymblanter on my talk page when they issued a threat of a ban was that I had done nothing wrong to warrant a ban-threat. I think I did get the point, and correctly pointed-out the issue with the threat. And that irked Ymblanter and so they requested a ban. Whatever you think the point is is likely something different than what the admin who initiated the ban request saw the point as. But please go ahead and explain what you think that the point is regarding this situation. Nozoz (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of their contributions are arguing at Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, edit warring at Eva Bartlett and arguing at WP:BLPN over that,

The majority of text I've written at WP is in discussion of topics. The majority of my topic edits, however, are not focused on those subjects. And since my edit of the Eva Bartlett page until my edit of the RT page, nobody has taken an issue with my edits. And there shouldn't have been an issue with the RT edit, as it played-out according to the WP rules and that should have been it. However, Ymblanter decided to issue a ban threat over it, citing three D-notices (one which they put there and 2 which are from the same edit of Eva Bartlett's page) which is where this discussion stems from. As Ymblanter had it pointed-out to them on the admin noticeboard, D-notices are informative and not punitive, and therefore there shouldn't have been a ban threat over the number of D-notices on my talk page. So, this all emerges from a mistaken interpretation of WP's rules - not by myself, but by Ymblanter. It was when I pointed-out to Ymblanter that I hadn't violated WP's rules that Ymblanter requested a ban, which is seems was for having been bold in making an edit they personally didn't like, and then for correctly (as it's been confirmed to have been) pointing-out that there wasn't grounds to threaten a ban. Nozoz (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sphilbrick:, would you mind reviewing of this appeal when you have the time?

Suggestion

I would be content with an unblock oin the condition that you are topic-banned from RT, broadly construed, with appeal permitted after 6 months of productive editing of other topics. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept that. However, I don't see the logic in it. I made an edit to the RT page, backed by sources (note that there is no cited source for the current "state-sponsored" claim on the page). And when my revert of the revert of my edit was undone, I didn't challenge it or seek to change it again. I acted in accordance with WP's rules and attempted no underhanded or improper manipulation of the page. Again, the premise for all of this is not that I edited RT, but that Ymblanter made a baseless ban threat over no wrong-doing of mine. To seek a topic ban from me implies that I did something wrong. But I didn't. As the first response to Ymblanter on the admin noticeboard says, "We say, over and over and over, that receiving a DS alert is informational, not evidence of wrongdoing. If the evidence of a problem is that they got 3 of them in one year, then there is no evidence of a problem". It seems to me that when an admin makes an accusation, people have a difficult time processing the event in any way other than through the presumption that something was actually done to warrant the accusation, and so preclude considering the possibility that the the accusation wasn't justified. But the ground fact here is that nothing was done to warrant the accusation, and therefore the accusation and its repercussions are without merit. A topic ban would imply there was some wrongdoing. But there wasn't. As of yet, no-one has pointed to anything that was wrong about my edit. Nozoz (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I do not mind, and not that my opinion is important, since I am clearly involved, but do not you think that the user should at least have some impression why they got in this situation? Right now they are convinced that all their Wikipedia edits were perfect, and the evil administrators just try to get them blocked, presumably for fun.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, a reasonable point. This lack of self-awareness is why I think the TBAN is needed. We're talking about someone with a couple of hundred edits, so IMO giving them space to learn outside a hot button area is appropriate, but that's just my view. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we can give them a chance.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that you have yet to point out what was wrong about my edit to the RT page. Saying "the user should at least have some impression why they got in this situation" is curious when the only explanation you've offered for threatening a ban has been pointed-out, first by myself, and then by another admin, to not be a legitimate basis for threatening a ban. Could you start with pointing-out what about my RT edit you wish to now claim got me into this situation? Nozoz (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told a few times, by various users, including myself, at various venues, what is wrong with your edits. In fact not a signle user has ever told you that your edits were unproblematic. However, you either do not get it or pretend you do not hear it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding the question and trying to deflect it with a false assertion (that anyone has mentioned what was wrong with my edit - they haven't). So, I ask you to answer plainly -and if various people have said what was wrong with it, it should be easy for you to answer: What do you claim was wrong with my RT page edit? Nozoz (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is (i) based on your own interpretation of a primary source (ii) repeats a multitude of similar edits rejected in the past; (iii) when your edit was reverted with the edit summary pointing out exactly what I denote (ii), you have chosen to revert rather than discuss with the user. --Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere. However, your telling of it isn't true to what happened. I didn't post an interpretation of my own: I referenced in my edit comment, including a URL, the US foreign agent registration which states that RT has editorial independence. So, I didn't interpret that RT isn't state-controlled, I cited that it isn't. And that foreign agent registration isn't simply a primary source: Since the US government reviewed and accepted it, taking no issue with it, it has the identity of also being a secondary corroboration. If there was a competing source substantiating a claim that RT is state-controlled, that would be one thing. But there is no source given on the RT page for the assertion that it is state-controlled. Now, the revert of my edit did not point-out anything other than saying "(previously discussed)" - which doesn't explain much. When looking at the talk page, there was no discussion about the label of "state-controlled". Yes, I chose to revert that non-explanatory revert, just as they chose to revert my edit rather than to discuss it with me. However, I didn't just revert as they did, I provided an actual explanation for my revert along with another source URL, and asked the person who reverted my edit to provide some information to back-up their position that RT is state-controlled. I showed a lot more due diligence than that person and also yourself who reverted my revert with just the comment "(Undid revision 974902120 by Nozoz (talk) and, given the number of warnings, the next revert may result in a block)" - with no explanation as to why a ban would be justified, or why the revert was done. Now, if you're going to complain about what you call a primary source (though I've pointed-out that it is simultaneously a secondary corroboration via the US government's review and acceptance of it), then I think that you should at least have a source for your counter-position. But there is none. Therefore the sources I provided represent greater substantiation than the no-substantiation offered for the converse argument. As for the "repeats a multitude of similar edits rejected in the past" part, that isn't something that I could be easily aware of when I made my edit, since there's no existing discussion of it in the talk page and no recent edits of it on the history page (in fact, I see no edit comment mentioning the subject going back to January 2018 - with that being as far as I've checked), but I don't think it could justify a ban threat, let alone an actual ban request, in any case. And even if there was prior discussion of this topic, that doesn't mean that the sources I brought don't present a greater substantiation than what was previously assumed. If it does or doesn't, that should be demonstrated in discussion and with sources, and not a curt comment of "previously discussed". I'm guessing that the particular sources I presented haven't actually been discussed before. So, I'm still not seeing where the 'wrong' part of my edit or behaviour is. I did do an edit, and I did behave in a manner in the course of my edit and 1 revert, but I don't see what makes my edit and behaviour wrong, WP rule-violating, and justifying of a ban threat or ban request. Nozoz (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good point to leave the case to an uninvolved administrator acting on an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nozoz, your overly verbose refusals to see the logic in what multiple people let you know was part of why I blocked you. If you continue demonstrating this behavior in other topics, that's going to lead to a block that's going to be much harder to appeal. And to be clear, your topic ban on RT would mean you need to stop arguing about it now and can't continue arguing about it elsewhere. You also can't edit in areas about people who work with or for RT (that's what "broadly construed" means). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A personal peeve over the thoroughness of my responses isn't legitimate grounds to impose an edit block. If you aren't interested in reading the information that establishes what the case is (and you did say "I don't have time for this" as your reason for imposing an edit block), you should leave the case to other people. And as I said before, "the length of my explanations (which are actually being given calmly) is merely a reflection of the number of inaccurate and false claims directed my way in pursuit of achieving a ban against me".

I am concerned that you have persistently used ambiguous, disingenuous, and outright false language to corral people into a determined conclusion. I don't think you should have any involvement in this matter, because of that behaviour and because of this list of false claims you've made against me.

your claim that I had censored any information on the Russia doping page (I haven't censored any)
your claim that I'd thrown-out an assessment by NYT, The Guardian, and two other outlets about Russian athlete doping (I did not, the comment and links you're referring to remained on the WP page for Russian doping after my edit which added to them a newer development. And those sites you mentioned weren't making their own assessment, but were citing the claim in McLaren's report which he clarified during court by saying he had been merely hypothesizing)
your claim that I ignored sources calling RT a propaganda outlet regarding my edit of the "state-controlled" label on the page for RT (I hadn't, I hadn't opined on that matter, and whether RT is or isn't a propaganda outlet is irrelevant to whether it's state-controlled, as those mean different things)
your claim that I'd downplayed Eva Bartlett's connection to RT (I did not, I accurately wrote that Bartlett is an independent journalist and that her journalism has been published in a variety of outlets, with RT listed first by me as among those she's been published in)
your claim that I had praised North Korea (I have done no such thing)
and now that I've ignored some unspecified logic that supposedly multiple people have told me (false assertions against me aren't a "logic", and they don't offer a course of action to listen to to resolve this situation. Responses to my case have been all over the place without a consistent logic, with your responses in particular not being acknowledging of what my case is actually about)

It's remarkable how many disingenuous accusations you have created to pursue action against me, and it's hypocritical for you to complain about my explanations and defence covering so much ground when your false claims have significantly contributed toward me having to correct a lot of things in my defence. It appears to me that you're conducting a charade, doing anything to have this matter looked at in any way except for what it is, and are showing a disdain for proper Wikipedia and admin conduct in the course of doing so. Just because you wield a stick doesn't mean that you are justified in using it any way you choose. Your conduct is like thuggery and blackmail, with you first tossing out a slew of false accusations to confuse and enshroud the environment, and then saying 'accept guilt and you can have a limited edit block'. And you took my effort correcting your list of false accusations against me as an unwillingness to work with the community. I sure hope that "the community" is not defined by admins making false accusations. In my RT edit, which is what this is about, I obeyed WP's editing rules and did not fight the community consensus. Same with my edits for Eva Bartlett's page, even though my edits do a lot to improve the objectivity and factualness of the page.

We have only just now received an offered explanation for Ymblanter's ban request beyond "three DS alerts". But their newly-offered explanation still doesn't identify eligible grounds for seeking a ban or edit block against me - your effort to shut-down examination of the matter notwithstanding. Tell me: Where in Wikipedia's rules and guidelines does it say that the condition for removing an edit block is that the blocked person cease defending themselves against the false allegations made of them, and that they not point-out the travesty of justice of how the review of the allegations has taken place?

The Bill Browder's version of what happened to Sergei Magnitsky claims that he was offered, by those he accused, freedom if he signed a document cancelling his allegations of their corruption. Here, you're making a similar proposal: Don't dispute or argue the groundless accusation, and don't call attention to the improper admin conduct. Be silent about it and in return receive only a partial edit block. For someone who shows such hostility towards someone who's made an innocuous edit (and had already accepted the editor consensus before this charade began), which I can only guess you perceive as threatening a non-objective anti-Russia front, you share a strange likeness with Russia's alleged behaviour. Nozoz (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have more proof of the charade that this has been from the start - originating with Ymblanter, and continuing with Ian.thomson. On the admin noticeboard, Ymblanter is being chewed-out for misusing D notices. In response, Ymblanter said this: "In this case, I saw serious misconduct which prompted me to give an alert, and I discovered that they already have two prior alerts in different topic given for even more serious misconduct as well. And the user had just over 100edits. I am not at all surprised that they were indefblocked before they became extended confirmed. May be the situation could have been handled slightly better, but I am afraid the outcome would still be the same, since in retrospect we see that all their edits are about whitewashing RT using bad sources or misrepresenting the sources."

In reality, I have made one (1) topic edit to the RT page. And it isn't misrepresenting the source, isn't using a bad source given that there is no source for the converse position, and it isn't white-washing RT. And Ymblanter has failed to explain how it could be construed as a case of misconduct. So, Ymblanter is lying an easily-disproven lie on the admin noticeboard page in an attempt to try to justify their action against me outside of their "three Ds" argument. This whole thing has been a charade and is without merit. The person who initiated it is outright lying to try to cover for their action after being told by admins that their initial argument is not a justification for their action. Since Ymblanter's initial argument for a ban is invalid, and their fallback argument is a lie, Ymblanter fully knows that they had no legitimate grounds to threaten or request a ban, but are trying to get away with it anyway. The edit block should be undone on these grounds. Nozoz (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: @Reyk: @Sphilbrick: Hello. Would you consider reviewing this case? Ymblanter has not been able to justify their ban request against me, and Ian.thomson has not been able to explain why an edit block would be warranted against me. On the admin noticeboard, I see that Ymblanter is lying to other admins about me to try to rationalize their request of a ban of me. Ymblanter says there that all my edits are white-washing RT with bad and misrepresented sources. But in truth I have only a single, that is to say one (1), edit on the RT topic page, and it doesn't attempt to white-wash RT, it doesn't use a bad source (considering there is no source for the converse position), and it isn't misrepresented in my discussion of the edit on the RT talk page. And I obeyed WP's rules and had already accepted the consensus against my edit before any of this mess was started. Ymblanter also says, "in this case all Ds alerts have been given for misconduct" - but Ymblanter has been notified multiple times that two of the D notices are over the same edit, and the 3rd was left by Ymblanter themselves over an edit for which there has been no identified misconduct, and indeed there is no misconduct with that edit to be identified. Ymblanter further says, "I have not made false statements. I actually never lie", right when they've just made the obvious and easily-diprovable lie of "since in retrospect we see that all their edits are about whitewashing RT". I say on the admin noticeboard that Ymblanter has acted in bad-faith, and I believe all the evidence is in the open proving that this is true. Nozoz (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why ping me? I've got nothing to do with this issue. Just because I have had disagreements with Ymblanter doesn't mean I'm automatically going to take the other person's side in any other dispute he's in. I have nothing to say about this issue, it neither concerns nor interests me, and anything I did say about it would be less than useful. Reyk _YO! 18:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I pinged you because there's a lack of objective input and progress here. I make no assumption regarding what side you will take. But the fact that you are not simply assuming Ymblanter's claims are true but are exercising caution of them is a positive sign. Not every admin has done that. As my ping request said, I'm asking people to consider reviewing the case. That also isn't an assumption that those pinged will, but is a request. Thanks for responding and letting me know that you aren't interested in the case. Nozoz (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nozoz, I provided WP:DIFFs with my accusations, that show the action taking place. Stop trying to gaslight us, your actions are public record. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:DIFFs literally do not show any of what you claimed. You made outright false claims, which you repeated even after you had it pointed-out to you that they are false. Therefore, you repeated them wilfully, which indicates that you have been lying. When you claim that that I'm attempting to gaslight, which I am certainly not, you are yourself attempting to gaslight people into buying into your claim without verifying it for themselves. Claiming that someone did something and then supplying a link that doesn't at-all show what you claimed occurred isn't substantiating your claims, it's just trying to hijack people's perceptions to herd people's thinking towards a certain conclusion - and that's all that your accusations are. Every person can verify this for themselves by checking your links, which don't display what you've claimed they do.

Since you are trying to cover the overtly indefensible (if anyone actually checks it), I'm going to report this so that it sits next your your repeated false assertion against me. I encourage everybody to check your claims against mine, using the links you supplied:

your claim that I had censored any information on the Russia doping page (I haven't censored any - the 'more than 1,000 Russian athletes benefited' claim remains on the page, as do the citations of the claim, but the claim is removed from the header where it was stated as a confirmed factual description of the situation because McLaren's court testimony recanted its status as an assertion of fact, and so it can't be stated to be one). Link
your claim that I'd thrown-out an assessment by NYT, The Guardian, and two other outlets about Russian athlete doping (I did not, the comment and links you're referring to remained on the WP page for Russian doping after my edit which added to them a newer development. And those sites you mentioned weren't making their own assessment, but were citing the claim in McLaren's report which he clarified during court by saying he had been merely hypothesizing) Link
your claim that I ignored sources calling RT a propaganda outlet regarding my edit of the "state-controlled" label on the page for RT (I hadn't, I hadn't opined on that matter, and whether RT is or isn't a propaganda outlet is irrelevant to whether it's state-controlled, as those mean different things) Link 1 Link 2
your claim that I'd downplayed Eva Bartlett's connection to RT (I did not, I accurately wrote that Bartlett is an independent journalist and that her journalism has been published in a variety of outlets, with RT listed first by me as among those she's been published in) Link
your claim that I had praised North Korea (I have done no such thing. I quoted Bartlett on her explanation of her trip to North Korea, putting her words in quotations and supplying the links for her comments) Link
and now that I've ignored some unspecified logic that supposedly multiple people have told me (false assertions against me aren't a "logic", and they don't offer a course of action to listen to to resolve this situation. Responses to my case have been all over the place without a consistent logic, with your responses in particular not being acknowledging of what my case is actually about)

You've been making-up one complete falsehood after another while acting as though the mere outward histrionic of making the claim and showing a link (one that doesn't contain what you alleged) is all the pretense needed to pass-off your desired action. What you're doing is like me claiming that the T-Rex could fly and linking to a page that talks about T-Rex sleeping habits and pretending that I had backed-up my claim - then when it's called into question by someone simply stating 'I provided evidence of my claim', presuming and hoping that the appearance of presenting a link was enough to trigger confirmation bias in those present who would be judges. Ymblanter has committed admin abuse, evidenced by his baseless ban request and inability to justify it on the admin noticeboard, most recently resorting to a lie to other admins about my edit history to try to defend it, claiming all my edits are about white-washing RT (only a single of my edits is about RT, and it doesn't attempt to white-wash RT). But you are also committing admin abuse because you have told one brazen falsehood after another and have used your false claims to justify your action of edit-blocking me. Ymblanter's and your action against me has been a charade built upon lies and a wiful misuse of WP's admin powers from the start. Nozoz (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More arguing that would violate a topic ban on RT, more gaslighting, more reasons to be opposed to unblocking even with a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you're doing is trying to cover your tracks by using more manipulative wording and false accusations while hoping that other admins don't actually make the effort to check what you claimed against what's shown in the links you supplied and which I've re-supplied next to each bullet-point claim of yours shown right above here. Because if they do, they'll unavoidably see for themselves that you've been lying the entire time, and based your edit block action on lies, and therefore have committed admin abuse. What I've said is substantiated in the very links you originally posted. But none of what you claimed is substantiated in the links you posted as the supposed evidence for your allegations. All that people have to do is check your claims and mine against the links provided. Nozoz (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I can make this clearer: arguing about this is a violation of the topic ban you said you'd agree to to be unblocked. And what happens if the community agrees with my assessment? The fact that you lack the capacity to even consider that prospect is one of the reasons why I blocked you. I'm sorry for asking you to stop gaslighting, since you don't even know how to stop gaslighting yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree to accept the accusations you and Ymblanter have made against me. I said I would accept a topic ban, but that I don't see the logic in it because the accusation against me is still false. And then you said, "And to be clear, your topic ban on RT would mean you need to stop arguing about it now and can't continue arguing about it elsewhere." That is not something I had heard before I said I would accept it. If that's an actual WP rule, that's something for me to consider before I made my decision. What is the WP rule mentioning this? As to what "the community" agrees with (though "the community" in these cases could just mean fellow like-mannered admins you have on speed-dial to rubber-stamp your actions), I can only go by what I know is true - and if "the community" makes an unjust verdict, then I know that this isn't a reputable community. I don't conform my behaviour to an unjust community in order to avoid its threat, like someone paying the protection money to a mob boss because they 'considered the repercussions' of not doing so. And telling me I have to stop talking about it here sounds like an intimidation tactic, and it sounds like I would be accepting the false accusations made against me, which, if it isn't clear enough, I don't accept because they aren't true. I would ask you to stop gaslighting people by claiming I'm trying to gaslight them, in addition to your other false claims, but I think it's clear that you haven't an interest in conducting yourself honestly and a request isn't going to change that. Nozoz (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:, Though this isn't directly about my case here, I want to point-out how Ymblanter is playing you and others in their own admin review regarding their requesting a ban of me, and in offering a claimed-explanation of what the source of the 'confusion' about their action is. Skipping to the part where Ymblanter is trying to defend their action against me based on D notices, they claim they witnessed misconduct on my part and that all 3 Ds on my page were given for misconduct, and that "in retrospect we see that all their edits are about whitewashing RT using bad sources or misrepresenting the sources". None of those claims are true.

They didn't find misconduct by me in my RT edit - and none is there to be found.
The D notice Ymblanter left on my talk page before claiming they found 3 Ds on it isn't for misconduct because, again, there was no misconduct in my RT edit (and Ymblanter has still not clarified what about my edit could be considered misconduct). And the other 2 Ds on my talk page are concerning the same edit.
I have only a single page edit for RT, and it isn't about white-washing RT, and so their claim that all my edits are about white-washing RT is a lie. My edit and also my RT talk page discussion also don't use a bad source and don't misrepresent the source.

So, when Ymblanter says to you that "I have not made false statements. I actually never lie", they are lying right there. One edit doesn't become "all their edits" according to an admin who has reviewed the person's edit history except by a wilful act of deception. And same goes for their other characterizations of me and my editing. But that's not all. When you pressed Ymblanter to give their confirmation to you that they would not abuse D notices again, they BSed you one more time, saying, "I think I see the problem. This can be (and probably was) interpreted that DS alerts are given for serious misconduct. Whereas this user has performed reasonably serious misconduct, I promise to be more careful choosing the wording in the future". Aside from the fact that I hadn't performed any misconduct whatsoever resulting in Ymblanter's action against me, they feign that there is a misunderstanding over the message they left on my talk page and that it was simply misconstrued by you to be the rationalization for the ban threat and request, while the ban threat and request was actually concerning something different (it wasn't, and their new claim of what it was for is an outright and easily-disproved lie). However, this claim is revealed to be false by Ymblanter's Admin Noticeboard petition which repeats that the ban threat and request is concerning the 3 Ds on my talk page, as he says on the Admin Noticeboard, "Then I notices that they managed to collect three DS alerts, in different topics, in a year. I them warned them that if they continue, they could be blocked". So, there wasn't a misunderstanding, Ymblanter simply made-up an excuse when they were told their ban threat and request is based on a misuse of D notices. And then their follow-up excuse for the ban threat and request is another flagrant lie. So, Ymblanter is taking you to be an absolute fool and is plainly playing you and the other admins, pissing in your faces while telling you that it's raining. And Ian.thomson has done the same thing on the Admin Noticeboard and in the discussion here of my appeal of my edit block. These are a couple of very bad actors who aren't attempting in the least to act within the mandates of WP's rules and adminship, but are treating those things as whatever they want them to be in order to achieve a personal goal of theirs that is not in-line with WP's goals. Nozoz (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Nozoz, I don't know what the issues are related to you and to be frank, I'm not going to read all these walls of text. There's no secret that I don't think Ymblanter is one of our more adept admins, but there are other knowledgeable and competent admins involved whose judgment I trust, and it's them you will have to convince, though you've got to find a way to put your points more succinctly. (I'm not an admin, BTW, I just play one on TV.) I'm sorry, but that's the best and only advice I can give you, other than that taking a break and returning in a few weeks, with a fresh perspective, might help you better see your way back into the project's good graces, whether or not you feel the falling-out process was entirely just. Good luck. E Eng 04:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @CaptainEek:. Your message of "I recommend you wait a few weeks as EEng has suggested, and that when you return you formulate a concise request which acknowledges your fault" misses the fact that, as of yet, there hasn't been identified what fault of mine there is. Ymblanter's "3Ds" claim has been rejected by multiple admins, and Ymblanter has been admonished on the admin noticeboard for using D notices as a pretext to request a ban. Subsequent to the "3Ds" claim, Ymblanter hasn't supplied any other reasoning for requesting an edit block. They made a claim that there was a bad edit, but when pressed about what was bad about the edit, they were unable to explain what could be construed as problematic about it. So, we're here with the state of things being that there exists no identified fault of mine. How am I to defend myself against no accusation of fault? And if there is no fault, then there is no cause for the edit block. So, the only proper thing to do is to remove the block. Nozoz (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nozoz, Ah, but you aren't blocked by Ymblanter. You're blocked by Ian.Thompson, who in his block notice says "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: Literally incapable of acknowledging that their actions aren't completely correct". Ian has pretty clearly explained above that you've been POV pushing and that you've edited mostly in a very narrow area. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CaptainEek:. Ian.Thompson's claims were actually false and categorically shown to be untrue. His claims also weren't concerning any recent edits and wasn't concerning what Ymblanter requested a ban for, and so justifying this block based on old edits (which are not examples of what he claimed) doesn't pass a logic test. And Ian.Thompson's assertions against me have been addressed a few times in this topic and been shown to be false. Correspondingly, they have received no support from any other admin. Ian.Thompson has not even attempted to defend against any of the refutation of his allegations. Please see the refutations of them here:

your claim that I had censored any information on the Russia doping page (I haven't censored any - the 'more than 1,000 Russian athletes benefited' claim remains on the page, as do the citations of the claim, but the claim is removed from the header where it was stated as a confirmed factual description of the situation because McLaren's court testimony recanted its status as an assertion of fact, and so it can't be stated to be one). Link
your claim that I'd thrown-out an assessment by NYT, The Guardian, and two other outlets about Russian athlete doping (I did not, the comment and links you're referring to remained on the WP page for Russian doping after my edit which added to them a newer development. And those sites you mentioned weren't making their own assessment, but were citing the claim in McLaren's report which he clarified during court by saying he had been merely hypothesizing) Link
your claim that I ignored sources calling RT a propaganda outlet regarding my edit of the "state-controlled" label on the page for RT (I hadn't, I hadn't opined on that matter, and whether RT is or isn't a propaganda outlet is irrelevant to whether it's state-controlled, as those mean different things) Link 1 Link 2
your claim that I'd downplayed Eva Bartlett's connection to RT (I did not, I accurately wrote that Bartlett is an independent journalist and that her journalism has been published in a variety of outlets, with RT listed first by me as among those she's been published in) Link
your claim that I had praised North Korea (I have done no such thing. I quoted Bartlett on her explanation of her trip to North Korea, putting her words in quotations and supplying the links for her comments) Link
and now that I've ignored some unspecified logic that supposedly multiple people have told me (false assertions against me aren't a "logic", and they don't offer a course of action to listen to to resolve this situation. Responses to my case have been all over the place without a consistent logic, with your responses in particular not being acknowledging of what my case is actually about)

Ian.Thompson has acted in bad faith with an agenda. Per the refutation of his assertions, there remains no identified fault on my behalf which could justify this block. Therefore, the proper thing to do is to remove the block. Nozoz (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek:@EEng: @Reyk: @Sphilbrick:, So, what's the deal here? The basis for this edit block was proved to be false, with the person who called for it being scolded by multiple people for having sought a block. And list of accusations Ian.Thompson retroactively came-up with was also shown to be categorically false. This means that there is no accusation against me and this edit-block is completely unjustified. This is as if you found some other random editor on Wikipedia and issued them an edit-block - with no explanation for it, not identifiable reason for why it should exist. So, why is it still here? Is there any integrity among Wikipedia admins, or do they just operate as a clique of thugs who disregard Wikipedia's mandates, or are otherwise too frightened to cross another admin's bad behaviour by undoing a wrongful action of theirs against an innocent editor? The system here is very clearly broken. Nozoz (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nozoz, I see a wall of text, but not sure why I am being pinged. How am I involved? I'm not saying I'm not, I contribute to a lot of places, and do not hold them all in active memory, but, at the moment, I don't recall prior involvement. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sphilbrick:. This situation has been a madhouse of nonsense. I'm pinging people to ask for help because some bad actors among the Wikipedia admins imposed a block-edit based on literally no substantiated accusation (each accusation has been categorically proven false) and yet the block-edit hasn't been lifted. One admin, Ymblanter, didn't like an edit that I made on the RT page (though, the edit I made was in accordance with WP editing guidelines) and asked for me to be edit-blocked based on the premise that I had 3D notices (two of which were for the same topic and 1 which they placed there themselves to justify their "3D" claim). That admin was lambasted by multiple other admins for abusing 3D notices, which are not means to be punitive or count as-if penalty points. Another admin, Ian.thomson, dog-piled on and attempted to concoct a justification for the ban with a string of inventive (as in, false / not true) accusations, saying they don't have time for this and imposed the ban. I have refuted each of their accusations in bullet points in the above text. They have not disputed my refutation of their accusations, nor could they because their individual accusations were 100% not true. Another admin, CaptainEek, didn't review the case material, but responded that multiple other admins responded and no-one's seen fit to remove the block-edit, and therefore they'll deny my request for it to be removed. What's gone on here has been a comedy of errors (though, in the case of a couple admins, has been plainly deliberate manipulation). Here, there is a bunch of admins, some of which have done the wrong thing intentionally, done have done the wrong thing via negligence, while others are afraid to stand-up for the right thing. And none have been able to identify a factual basis for this block-edit (the original justification was quickly proven false). And it appears that none of them wants to admit that things were done wrong and the block-edit is unjustified. So, it seems to me that there is no integrity among the admin clique at WP. It's just people looking-out for their own biases and afraid to be seen as in opposition to admins who are willing to abuse their own adminship. Nozoz (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]