User talk:Kekmon

Need new username

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have managed to unintentionally provoke a lot of people leading them to bizarre conclusions about editing intentions with my username, which is apparently associated with fringe right (despite username predating Kek thing), so I obviously need a new username. Change it to Pyypivos, please. Kekmon (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make use of Special:GlobalRenameRequest to request a change of username. The people requesting to help requests by and large won't have the advanced permissions required to change your username themselves. Huon (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Kekmon, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Masssly —M@sssly^✉ 14:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

—M@sssly^✉ 14:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

I happened to notice this case (I read ANI when I should be sleeping), and I thought I'd try to help out. I think there might be some language and cultural differences that make Kekmon's actions seem worse than they were, at least in terms of wiki culture. (He seems to be Finnish as am I.) Yes he edit warred and wrote a personal attack, those are bad things. However I don't see the kind of POV pushing that was said in the ANI discussion. English Wikipedia seems to have quite strict rules about not mentioning people's Jewish background without context, but that doesn't mean that someone who tries to add such info is in any way targeting people of Jewish descent in a malicious way. I also don't see the SPLC case as POV pushing, he just didn't think the source was good for the statement. Maybe he's wrong but that doesn't make him a racist. As for his username, I thought maybe it had something to do with Kekkonen. And taking a Wikipedia editor award without reading the "rules", well, he saw it and like it, that's also not malicious. But now you're not helping your case, Kekmon, by posting those messages. -kyykaarme (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see... Personal attacks (there's more on this page I didn't include at ANI, in the unblock requests), edit warring, arguments of such a low quality of logic that they reflect poorly upon the editor, out-and-out lying, attempting to cover up their lies, attempting to alter other editor's reports at 3RRN (I didn't mention that at ANI, but see here), claiming to be more experienced than they actually are, making WP:NOTTHEM unblock requests and having a username associated with antisemitic trolls. You may have doubts about this editor's bad faith and that's perfectly understandable (I know in some Scandinavian languages, "kek" is the equivalent of "lol" in English), but I suspect you will be in the vast minority. Having edited in controversial subjects for several years now, this editor reminds me far more of many other new editors who were quickly indeffed for being disruptive than with those who have had difficulties at first, but overcame them to become a good editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still twisting the facts, not to mention none of you still haven't explained what is the problem with my 2½ year old user name... considering it precedes first source of Kek in that wikipage BY A YEAR. Explain that. You have decided it. Just as you have just now decided that I had arguments of poor quality. Looks like I need other ways to put my case forth. I'm looking forward to seeing three moderators lose their status. Kekmon (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know that an admin will block your access to this page if they see your rant above and look into it, right? You were blocked per WP:NOTHERE, and that's in your block log as well as at ANI. Lying about stuff we can easily check is one of the worst things you can do to your reputation on this site.

If you truly want to be able to edit WP, my advice would be: remove the rant and your unblock request below. use the {{help}} template to request a change in username. Then just sit and wait for about a month. Then make another unblock request in which you promise not to edit war, to cooperate with other editors and to try to remain neutral. Say that you understood what you've done wrong, and you won't do it again, even if you don't believe it. Wikipedia does not care about fairness. We only care about results. An admin will unblock you if they think that will produce the best results (adding a new, valuable editor to the pool). They will ignore you, no matter how unfairly you've been treated, if they think that ignoring you will produce the best result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kekmon, you should take the advice given to you above. This is not the Finnish Wikipedia where pretty much the only users who are indefinitely blocked are vandals. Admins here have bigger problems than dealing with your case and as mentioned, you might even lose access to this page and then it'll be even harder to get the block lifted. And please don't talk about admins losing their status, it's not going to happen and it only hurts your case. -kyykaarme (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try your advice. You or someone else needs to explain in very concrete terms why expanding bios to mention someone is Jew is punishable and leads to horrible conclusions of editor and even counts as "point of view pushing" where I see it as no different to mentioning default desktop of operating system. English is my third language. It seems like I have stumbled on something very dark and ugly in American psyche here that I don't understand. Same with accepting that yeah half sentence isn't good sourcing, while on the other case similar half sentence qualifies as article leader statement. It's hard to understand I did something wrong if I don't understand what it was. Kekmon (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've attempted article talk page laying my reasons, no response. I attempted reporting Volunteer Marek before further escalation. What else can I even do? Kekmon (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can resolve the discussion and acquire consensus for your changes. Kuru (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

How do I resolve the discussion when there are no replies and not one bit self-criticism from opponent? Furthermore this ban was imposed by Black Kite without him even looking at validity of my claims that are on article talk page and which I also told of in 3RR page, instead he decided by himself that unbased claim I try to remove is valid when it clearly is not, and punished me for dubious reason that was put outside my notifications instead of user talk page. That is abuse of moderator power: deciding content and punishing editors not agreeing. Kekmon (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request is needed. As you have opened a new one, I will close this one. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

1) I have no idea what is this about "divisive username" 2) I fancied that medal for its looks (could have gone grandmaster but it looked ugly), sorry about that if it's big deal 3) Bluntly replying "SPLC is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)" is not in any way discussion 4) Revert-edit warring was in none of the cases started by me 5) Reasoning why claim of source quality is "spurious" is laughable 6) You can clearly see from Marek's edit history he pushes agenda (exclusively politics, loves to stamp things as white supremacist, has accusations on his talk page of following users...) and I don't know procedures to stop, so I wrote how I see it on his page. 7) I'm only stuck on warring two articles Marek keeps reverting without discussion. On Wolff page where proper discussion was, I ceased per consensus 8) "a block per WP:No fucking Nazis" tells of serious moderator misjudgement and heavy bias. 9) Finally, I'm not NEW USER, I've been on Wikipedia with this username for two years. Kekmon (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Address the issues given by the blocking administrator at the top of this page, all else is irrelevant. Including the fact that an editor with less than 100 edits is a new user, even if their history here predates 2002. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

reason === Username === In Wikipedia, having old MMORPG username which coincides with something very recent from the fringe right is considered grave offense, and reason for indefinite block. This is just so nonsense I can't even counter the accusation because it has no attachment to reality whatsoever; made username change request anyways in WP:AGF. Asking WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL, please. Policy decided by moderators User:Drmies and User:Floquenbeam. Executed by User:Drmies without hearing on basis of non-existing policy "block per WP:No fucking Nazis".[1] === Jews === In Wikipedia, expanding biography of people to include mention of Judaism is antisemitism and racism, and reason for indefinite block. Own reasoning: WP:5P2 and WP:ASSERT (no different than mentioning Teemu Selänne is Finnish for me, a fact without further implications). Asking WP:AGF and WP:NDP, please. Policy decided by moderators User:Drmies and User:Floquenbeam. Executed by User:Drmies without hearing on basis of non-existing policy "block per WP:No fucking Nazis".[2] === Sources === In Wikipedia, disputing viability of claim by ACLU when research methodology behind presented generalising statement is not disclosed, is considered far-right activism, and reason for indefinite block. Own reasoning: WP:VERIFY, WP:ASSERT and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Asking WP:AGF and WP:NDP (ACLU doesn't exist in Finland), please. Policy decided by moderators User:Drmies, User:Floquenbeam, and User:Black Kite. Executed by User:Black Kite after posting warning outside my talk page, extended from 10 days to indefinite by User:Drmies without hearing on basis of non-existing policy "block per WP:No fucking Nazis".[3] === Other bad behavior === Three day ban over one day's bad behavior suffered and not even appealed before, bad behavior acknowledged because that was new situation as I had never before encountered edit warring starting with WP:UNCIVIL undo of sourced edit (undo remark being "so?"). Conflating that to entire editing history (including Finnish side of Wikipedia with no conflicts + over double the edit history) as "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" not to mention slander as nazi goes heavily against WP:5P4 and WP:PERSONAL. === My final response === Willing to WP:FAF and not escalate conflict. Full understanding of entering spiral of WP:UNCIVIL and being careful not to be provoked in future or provoke others. Kekmon (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not the post of someone who isn't trying to push an anti-semetic agenda. I'm revoking TPA as this is the third appeal without getting it. You can use WP:UTRS in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2018 (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.