User talk:Volkish Kurden

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May you also take action against the hypocrisy I pointed out? If i have to write it here during my vacation i will, but I would rather rest up knowing that my actions to help Wikipedia become a better place weren’t in vain. Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also how is this due to disruptive editing??? I didn’t edit anything. Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it fair to have you at least hear me out rather than the other members (including Aintabli who has worked alongside HOI against any changes on ‘Kurdish/Debatable origins linking to Kurds’ articles.

This is not an accusation but a fact due to my own eyes seeing them in edit history.

So when i gleefully offered a compromise to HOI, i was spammed with WP:RS, even after asking why these sources from prominent scolars aren’t reliable i get reported once again. Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish just please hear me out, this is terribly unfair. Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can read what you wrote. I'm not convinced that there will be no further disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So even highlighting how HOI has stated that the Kurd=Nomad theory, an ANTI-ZIGANISTIC one, is “sheer facts”?

Please read through what I stated again, otherwise I will HAVE to write it all properly. Volkish Kurden (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So when i gleefully offered a compromise to HOI, i was spammed with WP:RS, even after asking why these sources from prominent scolars aren’t reliable i get reported once again

I too accuse someone of being xenophobic when "gleefully" offering a "compromise" (WP:SYNTH through the use of +100 year old outdated sources, denying WP:AGE MATTERS and opposing late 20th-century sources because they're "anti-Kurdish"). And your actions did help Wikipedia become a better place - you being blocked lessens the number of disruption and WP:ASPERSIONS, I can see you're already getting started with targeting Aintabli, who's now apparently "working alongside me". My last comment here. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please stop harassing me in my talk, thank you. Volkish Kurden (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Originally I had not planned to request an unblock because I felt humiliated by the inaction of Wikipedians against issues that I had raised. However, given that I find my blocking absurdly unfair, I want to at least give it a shot.

So, let’s go step by step: After just doing my casual wikipedia dives, i see that the introduction here has a heavy emphasis on a specific theory of Kurdish origins, thus I decided it was best to inform that the page has a neutrality issue and go to the talk page… I started it off by stating “Recent scholarship” who? Asatrian? Who is known for his biased views on Kurds? I will place a POV template and see if this can either be changed or concluded as it is clear that the motive is to devalue all other research and to place the “Iranian Nomad” fringe theory as mainstream. - Whilst I shouldn’t have stated it was fringe, I am completely correct in my assumption, as it is a fact that Asatrian has abhorrent views against the Kurdish nation. This isn’t righting great wrongs, this is providing an alternative to an otherwise heavily biased introduction. Even after providing sources, coincidentally they are all unreliable… and after asking how or why? I get ignored and reported, just constant speculation and lies even after explaining that I had no ill intent towards the user who reported me. I have even seen one of the sources I cited being used in another page(citation 57), thus I find it absurd how it suddenly isn’t reliable!

One can easily read that even after the offer of multiple balanced compromises, my efforts were kicked and abused, disgustingly I was once again accused of being a sock puppet and being nasty (when those were all sorted last year).

Even then, my efforts were ignored, thus I lost my cool and ended up writing the rant above, I find it so unfair that my efforts instantly get reported rather than discussed - I don’t see why discussion are instantly avoided when I even agreed with the reporting user on some issues - but this isn’t about them this is about me - I can leave that issue for later.

I want to contribute to wikipedia. I want to make it a place that offers anyone the chance to be informed fairly, please check my previous edits here and here - the accusation that I am not a net positive is aspirational at best, I just don’t have the free time to dedicate my time to wikipedia because I am a university student, but when I have the chance, I want to contribute.

I want to address many more things but that calls for an ANI rather than in my unblock request - be it temporary or limited, just at least give me a chance to prove that I am not the user I was last year, and that claim is purely set to put me down. Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have demonstrated that you are incapable of editing about the Kurdish people in the manner Wikipedia requires- through setting aside nationalism and focusing on summarizing independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to correct any wrongs against the Kurdish people. Being unblocked is almost certainly going to involve a topic ban of some form, so we will need to know what topics you might edit about instead- though you seem to indicate you don't have specific plans to edit at this time. If not, you shouldn't request unblock until you have an edit you want to make, as blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (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.

Unblock request 2

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).

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

Request reason:

As per discussion with @331dotI believe it is best I am topic blocked off any articles to do with Kurdish wikipedia - Until I am able to follow wikipedia guidelines specifically required. I want to continue with my analysis of already acquired sources on my talk page and then once shown that I am capable of following criteria - appeal the topic block and have my contributions analysied.Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that you were already provided a second chance to edit constructively and collaboratively with other editors and failed to demonstrate you could do so, I'm declining your appeal. I believe that your only path to a successful appeal is to edit productively on another Wikimedia project for at least a year, and then to post an appeal explaining what you've learned and agreeing to a complete topic ban on Kurdish history. Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 22 August 2024 (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.

An explanation

@ScottishFinnishRadish Hi SFR, I don’t want to continue dragging on, but I am still deathly confused as to why I was banned from editing when the “disruptive editing” was placing a POV Template here. After reading Wikipedia:NOPOV I believe my compromise was balanced.

One can read the article and see that the introduction attempts to place one theory as the correct, main argument rather than allowing the article to speak for itself.

To allow you to see that the claim that I’m only here to disrupt is wrong, please check my contributions here (stopped by 3RR), here (where I presented a possible change to the introduction but was given a reason as to why that wasn’t possible), here and finally here - so with this in mind, you can see that the argument I had in the talk of Origin of the Kurds did not instantaneously mean i’m “not a net positive” - I do not want hatred against me and feel as if my contributions - as small as they are - have been positive for this website.

Why is it that past issues (which involved me disruptive editing) led to this ban? Why not just an explanation? A slap on the wrist? I did a mistake that time but have worked my way into contributing positively on Wikipedia! Volkish Kurden (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this also applies to @HandThatFeeds, I’m not sure why you acted so aggressively towards that other users appeal - heck I didn’t even know the individual left that comment until recently - when you could just explain that third party appeals aren’t possible… Volkish Kurden (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were already indeffed and returned to the same editing that necessitated the first block. I suggest you read through the last thread where multiple other editors were supporting an indef. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the only edit I did was add a POV template?

I did not attack HOI at all, which was the reason I was blocked previously… Volkish Kurden (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish considering you were the blocking admin, I generously request you read my appeal from last week, you were quick to jump to believing that I had disruptively edited, yet this is literally not the case, and cannot justify my block. Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, here you state that I "returned to the same editing that necessitated the first block."...

The first block reason was: "Disruptive editing - ethno-nationalistic editing, likely sock or meat".

Does a POV template = ethno-nationalistic editing? If so then I am shocked.

I completely understand back then that being accused of being a sock due to the ongoing issues not regarding myself makes sense, but again? Feel free to start another SPI Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please see previous unblock request as it has not been reviewedVolkish Kurden (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a misuse of the appeal template. Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 22 August 2024 (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.

Once more unto the breach.

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).

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

Request reason:

After my previous review was declined, I decide now to fully explain why I should not be barred off Wikipedia completely. The main argument that was made to get me blocked was that I have not contributed to Wikipedia(not a net-positive). I find that wrong as when I had free time, I had contributed positively on multiple occasions 1 2 3. I have even discussed fairly with the reporting user on a previous occasion. So with this in mind, I would like to address my ANI properly.

[1] One claim that was made at the end was And Volkish Kurden went against their word in their unblock request by attacking me again, accusing me of having a "problem" with Kurds and their history "I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history." This statement was taken extremely out of context, as I was responding to this: That's odd, you sure seem to "know" a lot about me considering you only have 109 edits, and have edited since 2023 May, so something doesn't add up. You have been suspected of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in the past, should we be concerned?. As I demonstrate here, I stated that I wanted (past tense) to understand their problem, this was referring to last year, in which my asperations caused my block. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODERN DAY, as the full, in context response states:

Also you claimed once again that I am a sock puppet, that is false and accusatory. I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history. Better to say “it’s not likely you descend from x but i will not give my POV but provide sources saying you don’t” vs “you don’t descend from x, your sources are wrong, you are a sock puppet.”

I was being accused for being a sock puppet, again, and explained what I had done in the past, as I used past tense multiple times. Do the words "watching", "quite a while ago" and "wanted" fail to show that I was specifically discussing the past, in which the report also brought up? Thus reiterating my point??? Why is it that any points I make instantly bring up the sock-puppet debate, go ahead and start another SPI, you will once again see that no, I am not a sock-puppet, this is accusatory and aspirational.

Once again in the ANI, another quote was also taken extremely out of context: They showed some of their anti-Iranian tendencies again (the previous one being attacking me for my background, as seen in the list), by claiming "Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!" Which is very ironic - this user is an Kurd, so by using their own logic they're biased too since its their history that is the topic? Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're always right.

To defend myself:

The claim I have an 'anti-iranian tendency' is aspirational, as the justification for such argument came from LAST YEAR (this was already dealt with). Someone's background can have an impact on their perspective, just like when I stated that Izady would also be likely to have a pro-Kurdish POV, the same can be said for Asatrian. Also I will add that M. Izady is unreliable in this context, due to his pro-Kurdish POV… Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!. This is not an incorrect statement, background can cause bias.

So when the abhorrent insult "logic doesn't apply to them (Kurds), they're always right." gets IGNORED by moderators and admins, it only goes to show that selective quotations is just the way to get anyone you don't agree with blocked.

The only edit I had created the entire time was adding a POV template - there was no disruptive editing or sandbox, rather a discussion which led to an ANI (strange considering a simple revert and admin intervention could have easily sorted the issue)

Also, my question as to why those sources aren't reliable was not answered, even when another page(citation 57) used one of my sources. My main point was to either remove the selected POV at the introduction of the page or add more information thus providing a balanced perspective following Wikipedia:NPOV

But no, that introduction MUST remain. When I asked I do recall you stating that the Kurd = Iranian nomad theory is “a fact” rather than a theory, could you confirm that? I got no answer... Yet here it is It refutes my “claims” (those are not claims, but sheer facts). What a response!

I do not want to hear anything about WP:NOTTHEM because I am tired of my quotes being taken out of context to plaster me as a disgusting person. I am tired of not being heard and told "TL;DR".

If my behavior was considered RGW, then I won't do it again, thank you for highlighting it. However, you can clearly see above that there was no asperations involved at all. As one user @Sikorki wrote: @ScottishFinnishRadish Hi, I believe the recent block on this user was unnecessary. After reviewing his edit history, I noticed that most of his contributions were accurate and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems that he was blocked for a single edit Here where he requested a source due to a perceived POV issue in the introduction. Considering this, I feel that a long-term block is too harsh for one edit, especially since he was previously blocked for a similar issue, related to his interaction with @HistoryofIran. Additionally, it appears that @HistoryofIran has brought up that past interaction to justify this current block, which seems a bit unreasonable. This was spot on, it was my past mistakes which had vilified me.

I don't even know this user, but them including @Liz were the ONLY TWO who actually spoke with decency to me. People saw that I had done wrong in the past, yet failed to even see that I wasn't making asperations and I asked them to actually read my response (though on my end, I should have written it better like I did so here) Nothing that I had said was assumed to be in good faith.

So what should have happened? I should have not tried to RGW, even when I was under the impression that I was following Wikipedia:NPOV - as listed above. And I believe that via Wikipedia:DR, an admin should have ordered the discussion to stop, and for me to read the requirements needed to add a POV tag. Volkish Kurden (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My advice is to propose editing an area outside of your previous editing pattern, and to accept a topic ban. Then after you make that work, your topic could be lifted. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2024 (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.

Volkish Kurden (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a review

Hi @Deepfriedokra, since you were the admin to read my unblock request last time, I would like you to review my recent request.

As we agreed, there would be no aspersions - and shockingly, there was none!

Due to the negligence of the reviewers of my ANI, my block completely overlooked the context of my messages, and whilst in reality I was the one receiving aspirations and accusations - I’m the one who’s blocked? Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The negligence of the reviewers of my ANI," sounds like an aspersion or a personal attack. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, sorry, I am still frustrated about not even having a chance to explain during the ANI - I do apologise and won’t do that again. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one's gonna read that unblock request. Please concisely and clearly describe how your edits warranted a block and what you would do differently. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I explained in detail that there wasn’t justification for the block! I hadn’t casted aspersions onto the user nor did i disruptively edit like last year :(

All i did was add a POV template and wanted a discussion in the talk section.

I’m more than willing to skim it however it would make my explanation look slim and effortless. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to ANI thread that led to reinstatement of block. I'm concerned that user is by nature not compatible with this project. I recommend that an unblock condition of six months and 500 constructive edits on a different Wikipedia be considered, though exporting disruptive users to other projects may or may not be a great idea. Someone else can decide if topic bans of one sort or another are needed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could i ask why? - I was under the assumption I was following NPOV by adding a POV template to the page and asking for a source due to the perceived biased of the introduction. There was no disruptive editing involved. If I RGW then I apologise but that was not my intention at all. I meant no harm to the discussing user and did not cast aspersions against them. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my appeal:

“And I believe that via Wikipedia:DR, an admin should have ordered the discussion to stop, and for me to read the requirements needed to add a POV tag.”

The block was unnecessary and came from last years resolved block. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help build wikipedia, but being indeffed without taking into detail my growth and positive contributions to the encyclopedia decays my productivity. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as per your reply, I have written a very summarized appeal and explanation. Though I do feel like it doesn't feel like it's enough because I can't include quotes and deconstruct them. Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summarized and explained

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).

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

Request reason:

As per discussion with @Deepfriedokra I will explained concisely following Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.

The blocking admin @ScottishFinnishRadish indeffed me for disruptive editing for two reasons: WP:RGW and Aspersions.

The ANI had presented the case against me, using last years ANI reasons which involved my nasty comments against the user and disruptive editing on Wikipedia.

As I was unable to properly explain, the admin indeffed for reasons the ANI presented. To address these: The only edit I had done was add a POV template, unlike last year which involved mass reverts + aspersions against the reporting user. I did not do that since my unblock. I was under the impression that I was following Wikipedia:NPOV rather than Wikipedia:RGW, I was sure of this due to my positive contributions ever since my unblock, if this was not the case, I apologize profusely.

The second reason - casting aspersions - was misunderstood. I did not meaningfully cast aspersions against the reporting user. My reply was possibly taken and understood out of context, as I was explaining my reasons for 'knowing' the said user last year (I was once again accused of sockpuppetry), this was taken out of context and shown to be a modern aspersion rather than one of the past. I apologize if I did not make that clear.

I understand that the blocking admin had no issue indeffing me - I had done what was accused of me before, however, as I have made very clear - I was explaining about the past.

Rather than an indeff, via Wikipedia:DR, an admin should have ordered the discussion to stop, and for me to read the requirements needed to add a POV tag. I have had positive interactions in the past with the reporting user, I had no intent to cast aspersions against them.

I would love to continue contributing positively to wikipedia as I have already done - including articles relating to the topic - with this in mind, I would love to have more discussions with admins about this if required. Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you accept a topic ban from Kurdish related articles, and then after that results in some collaborative editing, the topic ban could be reviewed. Or you could try editing another Wikimedia project. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2024 (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.

Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI deconstructed

The ANI.

See the previous ANI thread for more info [312]. On 22 May 2023, Volkish Kurden got indeffed for "Disruptive editing - ethno-nationalistic editing, likely sock or meat". This is amongst the nasty things they accused me (a stranger) right off the bat;

This is true, I never denied my mistake nor will, this was dealt with last year.

After they got indeffed, they then suddenly "realized" that they were on the wrong (imo this all an act, someone doesn't suddenly change like that, let's be real); "I was blocked due to my accusations of ideological bias against the other user which shouldn’t have been said or accused off, I should have taken the steps to appeal any rvs such as a talk/discussion and then leading to a possible admin complaint and such. It was unnecessary of me to label the user as such, and will not happen again.". They got unblocked due to that comment.

Aspersion against my genuine understanding of my mistake - how was this allowed to be said? Accused of lying too.

Their userpage history is concerning and screams WP:TENDENTIOUS / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS / WP:NOTHERE; just a kurdish historian who believes in the truth and debunking any of our oppressors misinformation for good Who are these "oppressors"? And who is Volkish Kurden to judge what is "misinformation" and "truth"?

This was copy and pasted from the previous ANI - if it wants going then I can remove it, the importance of such was placed at the back of my mind. Also, as my desire to always answer queries (this will be my shortcoming later on), you can read about those "oppressors" here.

And now we know why they oppose WP:AGE MATTERS, because they're heavily relying on +100 year old outdated sources to push a POV (mostly through WP:SYNTH), something which late 20th-century sources can't help with because they're "anti-Kurdish" (You may disagree with my sources all you want, but they exist for a reason and contributed heavily to Kurdish historiography prior to the “anti-Kurdish” movement of the late 20th century.). Heck, they even admitted knowingly citing non-WP:RS from "infoisrael.net" just because they agree with it! "Whilst I can agree that Honigman (A Middle East analyst)isn’t reliable compared to the rest, his writing sets the basis..."

I was not POV pushing, the user asked for sources and I provided. Some of those sources weren't even 100 years old (M.Chanin for example). I asked again and again why prominent scholars were suddenly unreliable, and got 0 answer.

Understanding ones mistakes led to growth, the use of Honigman, who I believed was reliable due to him being an analyst of Middle Eastern Affairs, may or may not be reliable, I went in with the belief I would establish common ground with the reporting user.

They showed some of their anti-Iranian tendencies again (the previous one being attacking me for my background, as seen in the list), by claiming "Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!" Which is very ironic - this user is an Kurd, so by using their own logic they're biased too since its their history that is the topic? Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're always right.

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions - I had, following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, presented a very fair approach to sources: Background can cause bias. Asatrian even has a "Views and Criticisms" section on his page, all of which are highlights of his negative views towards the Kurds. This isn't absurd to state, as the reporting user possibly intentionally left out the entire reply: Also I will add that M. Izady is unreliable in this context, due to his pro-Kurdish POV… Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!. Not only does this counter the asperation that I have anti-Iranian 'tendencies', but it also counters the absurd claim that "logic doesn't apply to them (Kurds), they're always right." I'm surprised this wasn't even mentioned by any admin, it is an insult towards an entire ethnic group.

And Volkish Kurden went against their word in their unblock request by attacking me again, accusing me of having a "problem" with Kurds and their history "I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history."

I did not attack the user. Let's see the full conversation that isn't possibly intentionally cut to seem like I'm attacking the reporting user... After stating that I knew the user uses WP:AGEMATTERS frequently especially in the past, they reply:

That's odd, you sure seem to "know" a lot about me considering you only have 109 edits, and have edited since 2023 May, so something doesn't add up. You have been suspected of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in the past, should we be concerned?

I respond with: Also you claimed once again that I am a sock puppet, that is false and accusatory. I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history.

I had and still have 0 intent to cast any asperations towards the reporting user, the quote was deliberately taken out of context to make it seem like I was attacking them. This is false and accusatory, as I clearly use past tense within the reply (watching, quite a while ago, wanted to understand) - this was in reference to the past, and had been apologized for, I had not meant it to offend the user, I should have made it more clear.

I don't think this user is a netpositive to this site (WP:NOTHERE), they're just one of the many new users who cause trouble in Middle Eastern-related article and end up getting indeffed.

Another asperation with no good faith. I had contributed positively on multiple occasions, for example:1 2 3. I have even discussed fairly with the reporting user on a previous occasion.

Their claim I'm not a netpositive is nasty, rather than discuss and compromise, my replies were taken out of context and no good faith was shown - rather, an instant indeff.

I'm sorry that I haven't edited for decades, however, that does not stop me from contributing positively to the site overall.

Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra @ScottishFinnishRadish feel free to read this if you want a proper response to my ANI - one that has no correlation with last years indef. Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also include users who were involved in the ANI:

@MiasmaEternal @Liz @AirshipJungleman29 @Sikorki @CFA @HandThatFeeds Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mass pinging, however I cannot write in your talk pages. Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And like I keep saying: Rather than an indeff, via Wikipedia:DR, an admin should have ordered the discussion to stop, and for me to read the requirements needed to add a POV tag. I have had positive interactions in the past with the reporting user, I had no intent to cast aspersions against them. Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent nationalistic editing is going to get you moved straight to a block. Please do not ping me again, and I do not respond to emails. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woah easy there, there was no “persistent nationalistic” edits at all, I merely wanted all users involved to understand that.

Feel free to press the mute button! Volkish Kurden (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please read “Summarized and explained”, “Your email” and “ANI deconstructed”, sorry for requesting again, I really want to continue contributing.Volkish Kurden (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you accept a topic ban from Kurdish related articles, and edit collaboratively in other areas. Or you could try editing another Wikimedia project. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2024 (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.

Volkish Kurden (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

You have at least one open unblock request. They/it will be reviewed by a volunteer with the unblock review team. It would be best if a fresh admin review your request(s) as they will come to them/it fresh. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the reply and your earlier advice! Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your email. I don't have any comment regarding your appeal but I am particularly concerned about this. If I was an admin, I would definitely not unblock you only two weeks after posting that comment. But maybe that's why I'm not an admin. C F A 💬 17:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply!

I apologize about that, it was discussed by the blocking admin. It was a moment of weakness from myself due to frustration.

Could I get another opinion from yourself if possible? I did not mean to Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND and apologize if my replies were seen as such. But considering I got a grip and explained how I really had no intent to RGW or cast aspersions, I would like to hear what you think! Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was summoned here, I'm not sure why. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of explanation.

It was because you were an involved admin last year and this year.

In the rejected appeal you said "through setting aside nationalism and focusing on summarizing independent reliable sources." - I completely agree, however, the nationalism highlights were entirely based on the previous ANI which was resolved.

Any modern connections to nationalism is unintentional and I do apologize, as stated in my recent review: It really was my belief I was following NPOV and not disruptively editing. Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I can show you where I could contribute if I wasn't blocked:

Denial of Kurds by Turkey - "Mehmed Şükrü Sekban, a Kurdish medical doctor from Ergani who worked in Sulaymaniyah in modern-day Iran, was likely the first person to publish an entire book that asserts that all Kurds are originally Turkic."

Here I could easily edit the mistake that Sulaymaniyah is in modern-day Iran, it's in the KRG within Iraq.

It might be small, but it's a positive contribution! Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but as I've reviewed a request on this matter, I can't review another. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good in my books! It's out of your hands, still I appreciate your time :) Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	<3 folkish koorden Perz00 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept

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).

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

Request reason:

I accept the topic ban @PhilKnight Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm going to close this as stale, UTRS is available for further appeals, unless you misuse that, too. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am not going to unblock you. You should write an unblock request for the next reviewing admin. PhilKnight (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It has been weeks and even after explaining in depth why my block was unnecessary and even unjustified due to the fact it was LAST YEARS ANI (which was why I had been blocked for “ethno-nationalist editing”) was used in this context to justify my blocking because apparently I’m not a net positive?

I’m getting tired of this constant back and forth, I can’t even report the reporting user for sock puppet accusations - this is how they get away with abuse.

You suggest the topic ban, I accept, suddenly you aren’t going to unblock? Blink twice if someone has threatened you Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your email: you have made six requests (not including the currently open request), all of which have been declined. You continue to cast aspersions against others, continue to call the block unjustified and demonstrate an outright WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Bottom line - you have exhausted the avenues for appeal available to you on-wiki. Your choices for pursuing an appeal are outlined in the template I left for you above. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of removing talk page access was not to have you just start spamming me emails. Stop.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]