User talk:Vnkd

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 03:34, 17 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

17 Jan: This is simply unfair and politically motivated. I did not cancel anything this time, I just placed the "disputed label" and started the discussion because it is disputed by the parties involved in the war first of all! Read each entry and you will find tons of claims and counterclaims. No way you can make a straightforward table about it.

That mr.user2000 user is making two tables by himself which were not discussed with anyone. Even they are different in format between each other with the Yemeni one full of assumptions: it is full of "*" "claim" "+" "-" ... I am asking, how does that correlate with an encyclopedia? How can he pretend to know facts about two conflicts (the Yemeni even more) with very limited information? Some of the entries are sourced through RT.com, Iranpress, or the Iranian/Hezboallah Almanarnews which are disputed on wikipedia as trustable sources. I did a lot the entries in those articles, but I really hate to see a person coming in and building up a report based on his POV, drawing conclusions about facts that happened in a place far away, while in most of the entries I tried to keep all the different sides reports together. There is nothing personal, seriously look at the contents! I can read political motivations in his edits, siding with the former Soviet/modern Russian POV.

And I can read on your moderator talk page he reported - "vnkd is back" like I was just making vandalism or something. Just read at my edits which are still there around. Also I can see he "undid" a change on my personal page. That's also quite mean. For my personal will, I want my page to stay blank. I don't see how a user who war-edits other peoples' personal talk page can be a good user. No, vnkd has a real name and a real life. I see that this guy has plenty of time, but still he should not be allowed to monopolize this place with his own conclusions.

I ask to have different moderator checking into this point as your user:El_C political view is sided with the one of that mr.user2000 and very clearly shown on your personal page. I ask this to be openly discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force Vnkd (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

18 Jan:

The work that I will always contest are those two tables. They are built up based on mixed internet sources bouncing different POV while in those tables Mr.user2000 drew his own personal conclusion of facts that are disputed. As such they should be either heavily simplified or should report the "disputed tag" on top, if someone from a working group like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force says it's better to keep them there. Blocking me because I reported the disputed tag in the correct way and started the discussion is simply unfair. If El_C feels that my title (that being: By type = personal assumptions by Mr.user2000) on the discussion page about Mr.user2000 offended wikipedia spirit then El_C should also feel that writing "vnkd is back" like I was just trolling or reverting changes on my personal page should be equally treated by a block to mr.user2000. By the way, since those tables are 99% work by mr.user2000, I don't see any harassment in starting a discussion in the talk page by saying "By type = personal assumptions by Mr.user2000" Rather I see harassment against me, in his reporting me to El_C everytime that I touch his sacred tables in Yemeni and Syrian Air losses. Again since I don't feel that El_C has a neutral standpoint on this matter (and that's quite evident from your personal page, no offence here, you published the material yourself), I do require another moderator to look into this dispute and mostly I want to ask the lists to be under scrutiny by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force. That is simply fairness.

Vnkd (talk) 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What I'm seeing here, and below, is a long string of accusations against other editors. And the content dispute itself can not be handled in an unblock request. I urge you to pay attention to El_C's advice, below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2021 (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.

Vnkd, the point is that you need to stop harassing Mr.User200 with article talk page sections like this and this. And please also stop casting aspersions about him, or about me, for that matter. That said, you are allowed to blank your talk page. So, feel free to do so at any time. I'll tell Mr.User200 that it is inappropriate for them to revert you here. El_C 15:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vnkd, I'll add that I am perfectly content with being upfront about my biases. The fact that I've been an editor in good standing since 2004 and an admin in good standing since 2005 I think speaks volumes. And even if my decisions were driven by my biases —which they are not, and which, again, is an aspersion of you to claim otherwise— what would that ideology have to do with anything concerning this particular dispute? Absolutely nothing, that's what. You are just throwing shade, hoping that it will stick. And I gotta tell you: I think it reflects poorly on you. El_C 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a moderator having the same ideas of the one who's asking his help on a political topic does represent quite a violation of common sense and fairness since I see that you and Mr.user2000 are having the same ideas, he comes to you and you approve his requests. I can see on his page Mr.user2000 has been reported for pro-Russian/soviet/communist propaganda. It's clearly reported digging into his page.

I will reply to your point:

You asked "what that ideology have to do with anything concerning this particular dispute?"

It's easily identifiable on Rt.com and Sputniknews there is a longstanding policy by Russian propaganda machine to try to show Russian made (and partners) weapon systems as highly successful while downplaying Western ones... That's exactly what mr.user2000 is doing all the time and those two tables, the Yemeni one in particular, with its twisted format and sings and claims and guessing are exactly there for that. You are just here helping him in doing so. As such, as you admitted, you have a biased POV and that reflects very poorly on you, even more being an editor.

I don't care you and mr.user2000 being communists. I care about some articles I helped quite a lot to shape (actually I started both of them) not to become part of that subtle Russian propaganda machine called Maskirovka.

Again my request is to bring this topic to a different editor, possibly involving people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force as your moderation is just full of bias, on your own words.

I can see the guy is finally cleaning up his tables... So why am I blocked? Just because I started a discussion and he finally acted?

Mr.user2000, you are not welcome on my talk page. Stay at bay, please. Your table itself is a poor work of propaganda full of assumptions and your personal view.

Yeah, well good luck getting unblocked with all of that contrived distortion and fabrications that you mistakenly feel redeems you. It does not and it will not. And I'm telling you right now that if you go on to WP:HARASS him again, I will block you, but this time for an indefinite duration. Please restrict yourself to being matter-of-fact. Please do not go from page to page, copying the same unsigned comment about their "personal assumptions." That is not allowed. Also, unsigned just like your outlandish comment directly above. What, you've been here since 2007 and you still haven't mastered WP:SIGN, or WP:INDENT, for that matter? That may not be a big deal (though it is odd), but what is of import is how you are treating other people. Which is to say: poorly. Look, either start conducting yourself in a manner befitting an encyclopedia editor, which is to say, professionally, or you simply will no longer be welcome on the project. Don't say I didn't warn you. El_C 02:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Vnkd, forget for a second about the sacred Wikipedia maxim that no matter what someone believes or claims to believe, it should still be assumed that they are able to edit neutrally despite that — you keep mentioning Mr.User200's political affiliation over and over above. What I'm wondering is: how do you actually know what it is? I mean, empirically, concretely, on an epistemological level. El_C 02:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

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 why you should be 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 post of this notice.

El_C 08:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vnkd, I want to be perfectly clear: if you continue to act disrespectfully toward anyone once this block expires, you'll be blocked indefinitely, probably with talk access disabled. I want to make sure you realize that there's no going back to your previous behavior. Major improvements will be expected as a prerequisite to retaining editing privilege's. El_C 09:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

El_C 02:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for indefinitely blocking this dude. This guy, as far as I remember, put up a page in one of my alt accounts in wikipedia and made a personal insult about me over my leftist political views. If I could give you an award, I would. Magellan Fan (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]