User talk:Volkish Kurden

May 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Carduchii ‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your edit completely destroyed the page, I had linked the article to the Carduchi hypothesis on the Corduene page however your claim that I had apparently attempted to diminish your reputation was mere tu quoque. As my reasoning for my edit summary was based on a posteriori considering your pan-iranic bias and subsequently anti kurdish nature Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, I'll say it for the third time, which you are yet to address; "article is a WP:POVFORK that suffers from issues such as WP:POV, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and so on. Needs to be rewritten from scratch, as this is utter nonsense." The article was one of several articles suffering from this problem, such as Cadusii, all articles which has nothing to do with the Kurds, as they weren't an ethnic group back then (something well attested with sources in articles such as Kurds). I really couldn't care less about others ethnicities; Attack me again, and I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please point out where I “attacked” you? I merely pointed out and used a posteriori analysis to make my judgement.

In terms of rewriting the article, restoring the previous version with notes that it is a povfork would be best but i’m appealing to nothing saying that.

okay, the page will be rewritten.

however the article itself IS related to Kurds, due to the hypothesis of connections mainly to Kurds (I won’t give my opinion on such due to obvious bias), so it is in all technicality related to the Kurds, like how Achaemenids are related to Persians etc. Volkish Kurden (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I have a "pan-Iranic bias" and "anti-Kurdish nature" is not an attack? What is it then, when you have no proof? (again, see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA) You don't even know me. Related to Kurds? Yes and no, it's just a theory, and a diminishing one a that. Kurdish history? [1] Not at all, and never gonna happen, as we follow WP:RS in Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

again, as I mentioned, a posteriori, if you are offended by such I do apologise.

in terms of reliable sources the ones that are considered “unreliable” are mainly due in thanks of bias, a plethora of cross referencing will be required once the article is rewritten. Volkish Kurden (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop beating around the bush, this clearly demonstrates that you have no proof whatsoever, and I would like you to keep those thoughts to yourself from now on. As for the rest of your comment, I am not sure what you're trying to say. Anyhow, as long as you don't violate our guidelines/policies again, all should be good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your attitude even after I apologised doesn’t bode well with my intent.

It was semi-speculation as every single “Iranian” history I have witness manipulate history using biased sources caused my response, again I do apologise for speculation but keep I do hope you understand considering the circumstances.

what I was trying to say in the rest of my comment was that I agree that the article must be rewritten and the sources cross referenced to make an articulate page compared to the previous one.

xuda hafez. Volkish Kurden (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit: It was semi-speculation as every single “Iranian” historian I have witnessed end up manipulating history using biased sources which caused my response, again I do apologise for speculation but I do hope you understand considering the circumstances.

what I was attempting to verbalize in the previous comment was that I accede that the article must be re-written and the sources cross-referenced to make an articulate page compared to the one prior, with sources from all angles including the connection to Kurds possibility. (though we must be weary of bias WP:POV)

thank you, xuda hafez. Volkish Kurden (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just generalizing a whole group, and I'm not a historian, and it sounds like those people you interacted with weren't either (also, there are always two sides to every story). Anyhow, let's move on. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Please see [2] HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so you block a user who provided plenty of evidence that the apologist historyofiran was using a literal far right ultranationalist as a source to directly influence any and all pages regarding kurdish history? utter nonsense Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (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:

A ban without a review other than quote " @HistoryofIran is our "greatest" user against "nationalistic" edits ", this is not only a fallacious claim but also clearly biased moderation. The case about Shahmaran is also really interesting because instead of the admins focusing on HistoryofIran vandalizing the page with anti-kurdish writings (one doesn't need to be Kurdish to see this behaviour) but also their continued defense of extremely kurdophobic and ultranationalist sources such as Asatrian, which above one can see my evidence of such, instead of any focus on such, @HistoryofIran instantly rushed to the admin team which are CLEARLY biased for them. I would prefer a block so I do not need to deal with such behavior and if they attempt to revert my edits and vice verse, an admin review the edits so to have an unbiased POV on such. Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, if you would prefer a block then why are you asking to be unblocked? — Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Daniel Case I do apologise, I misinterpreted what “block” meant (I thought it just was something that wouldn’t allow me to deal with the user who reported me), apologies, please read below and disregard the block messageVolkish Kurden (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You should only discuss your actions that led to the block, not what others did. If you are so easily provoked, you will need to rethink the topics you edit about and find less controversial areas. Only you can control what you do. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2023 (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.

Also to add, all those defending @HistoryofIran have been making abhorrent claims of not only myself but others who have attempted to fix any issues on pages which are essential to Kurdish history and identity. They have taken a no ifs of buts approach to @HistoryofIran being reported, instead siding which such user and violating the policies which they themselves should be following.

The user had provoked a response on my first edit which led me to respond back, and yet when I threatened them with a report for talking in a very condescending matter, going against the rules, they instead rushed to ScottishFinnishRadish to get me banned as they had known of my sources against those which they use, I provided a very detailed response on their talk page about Asatrian, which you can find here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrtians#Asatrian

I was responded with a fallacious response [I think I’ve given you enough WP:ROPE. HistoryofIran], which in itself should be report worthy, yet due to said user rushing to the admin team as per usual whenever a source is provided against them, instead, I am the one who is banned.

Sort this issue out, just because they have 10 years on wikipedia spreading misinformation doesn't mean that they are worth anything more than a new user.

I would like an admin consensus on investigating the user @HistoryofIran 's continued running to admins whenever they are proved wrong with sources, even when some users had discussions which were backed, like myself (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrtians#Asatrian), they instead jumped to the report request.

What is this? Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased, yet the admins clearly have their biases as seen with the responses to @HistoryofIran 's abhorrent claims about me which are clearly cherry picked [3] Volkish Kurden (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also ScottishFinnishRadish I do apologise for you having to deal which such nonsense, but to accuse of me of "ethno-nationalistic" editing is very unprofessional as HistoryofIran has shown plenty of "ethno-nationalistic" biases when it comes to sources and such. Again, see the Asatrian example of such. Volkish Kurden (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep pinging me? I am living that rent free in that head of yours? Leave me alone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for the notifications, though your edit summary of "22 May 2023‎ @HistoryofIran"nvm, not worth it with this kind of person." wasn't nice at all

I understand that your intent wasn't negative, or from what I have gathered, and that my overreaction to your edits was childish and not needed..

I would prefer to be unbanned if allowed and to follow rules especially right great wrongs.

If I am not allowed to be unbanned, then I would at least like an investigation into you and possibly LouisAragon as I have seen alot of articles they have edited too for any form of claims as I've mentioned above. Volkish Kurden (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Volkish Kurden (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the cleanup @Tropicalkitty, i cant wrap my head around how that unblock source works! Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no need for you to add multiple unreviewed unblock templates. Only one unblock request at a time (no additional requests until that unblock request is reviewed). Tropicalkitty (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification! just to also ask, will the entire appeal be read or only the section within the unblock request? Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s mainly based on what your appeal is in the unblock request template, but what you have discussed below may also be looked at. Tropicalkitty (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

guessing since I said read below the rest may be considered, great! thank you very much for the information, thumbs up from me :) Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2023 (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:

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.Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are complaining your unblock request wasn't reviewed for 12 hours? We are all volunteers here. If you aren't able to wait 12 hours, Wikipedia clearly isn't the place for you. Others have been waiting literally weeks. Yamla (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2023 (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.

Have no admins checked on this? it's been over 12 hours since the last review, I feel as if I am presenting my case and apology to an empty crowd.

You’ve been rejected twice now and your userpage implies you’re a WP:SPA with a political agenda. I’ll fetch an admin but don’t expect much. Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus I did make a request to change such but it was rejected due to the current block, it was a quick name i couldn't think of others, so my desire to change my name NOT wanting to hide my ANI but rather to prevent implications of WP:SPA

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I don't know why my request is blocked over a comment which had nothing to do with my appeal but I did not mean the 12 hour thing in any negative way, again, my appeal is like above which if I were to write again would just be magpieingVolkish Kurden (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per discussion with blocking admin. User is urged to refrain from personal attacks and casting WP:aspersions, and to assume good faith. Please use WP:dispute resolution as needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: OK to unblock?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I don't have high hopes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I gave up hope. 😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey silly jokes aside i appreciate the understanding and I hope to become a better editor thanks to everyone’s advice Volkish Kurden (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

A Memoir To Inform You That My People Will Die Tomorrow

Those who watched my battle against corruption and racism, this unfortunate case has come against me… /// My efforts were in vain, my conversations and concerns ignored… I tried my best to make wikipedias articles controlled by our occupiers… I lost due to wikipedias complicity to genocide. Read steps 1-3 in the Ten Stages of Genocide. /// Just as my martyred family fought against this “Kurd = Nomad” racism, i did too, without guns but evidence that we are indigenous. /// Yet we see articles about Palestine become protected. /// Whilst they wear free palestine badges, Kurds get wiped out, this is just reality. /// ئەی رەقیب، ھەر ماوە قەومی کوردزمان، نایشکێنێ دانەری تۆپی زەمان. کەس نەڵێ کورد مردووە، کورد زیندووه، زیندووە، قەت نانەوێ ئاڵاکەمان. /// WE WERE KURDS AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN KURDS, LONG LIVE MY NATION, LOVE LIVE THE PEOPLE OF KURDISTAN. Volkish Kurden (talk) 22:28, 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.

Thank you

Wow @331dot, in all the times that Wikipedians and Admins have hurled degrading language at me, you’ve actually spoken to me with respect and explanation, I can’t help but thank you.

I still find it odd why the sources I provided aren’t reliable? von Luschan isn’t a Kurdish nationalist, neither is M. Chahin… so from that analysis alone shouldn’t they be reliable?

Also, can a blocked user submit an ANI request? Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to get unblocked first. And I would suggest that wanting to carrying this on further is not a point in your favor in getting unblocked. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

Now i can add sections?

Strange… I thought I got talk page blocked, thankfully not! Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposition!

@Ponyo Disregard, I have decided otherwise Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once more unto the breach.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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.

[4] 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]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Iranian_languages&diff=prev&oldid=1220360296 1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Volkish_Kurden&target=Volkish+Kurden&offset=20240421141823 2][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kurdish_dynasties_and_countries&oldid=1169042822 3]. I have even discussed fairly with the reporting user on a previous [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suleiman_al-Halabi#Syrian_theology_student? occasion]. So with this in mind, I would like to address my ANI properly.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish_Kurden,_part_2] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240149255 "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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240132334  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:   [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149433  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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish Kurden, part 2|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/SPI 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240149433 "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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149433  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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240093783 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 [[Corduene|another page]](citation 57) used one of my sources.  My main point was to either remove the selected POV at the introduction of the [[Origin of the Kurds|page]] or add more information thus providing a balanced perspective following [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]  But no, that introduction MUST remain. When I asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149255 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyrtians&diff=prev&oldid=1156210003 It refutes my “claims” (those are not claims, but sheer facts)]. What a response!   I do not want to hear anything about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTTHEM&redirect=no 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 @[[User:Sikorki|Sikorki]] wrote: '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish Kurden, part 2|@]][[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240093783 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 @[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]]. Additionally, it appears that @[[User:HistoryofIran|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 @[[User:Liz|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. [[User:Volkish Kurden|Volkish Kurden]] ([[User talk:Volkish Kurden#top|talk]]) 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Iranian_languages&diff=prev&oldid=1220360296 1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Volkish_Kurden&target=Volkish+Kurden&offset=20240421141823 2][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kurdish_dynasties_and_countries&oldid=1169042822 3]. I have even discussed fairly with the reporting user on a previous [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suleiman_al-Halabi#Syrian_theology_student? occasion]. So with this in mind, I would like to address my ANI properly.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish_Kurden,_part_2] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240149255 "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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240132334  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:   [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149433  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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish Kurden, part 2|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/SPI 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240149433 "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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149433  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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240093783 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 [[Corduene|another page]](citation 57) used one of my sources.  My main point was to either remove the selected POV at the introduction of the [[Origin of the Kurds|page]] or add more information thus providing a balanced perspective following [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]  But no, that introduction MUST remain. When I asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149255 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyrtians&diff=prev&oldid=1156210003 It refutes my “claims” (those are not claims, but sheer facts)]. What a response!   I do not want to hear anything about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTTHEM&redirect=no 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 @[[User:Sikorki|Sikorki]] wrote: '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish Kurden, part 2|@]][[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240093783 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 @[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]]. Additionally, it appears that @[[User:HistoryofIran|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 @[[User:Liz|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. [[User:Volkish Kurden|Volkish Kurden]] ([[User talk:Volkish Kurden#top|talk]]) 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Iranian_languages&diff=prev&oldid=1220360296 1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Volkish_Kurden&target=Volkish+Kurden&offset=20240421141823 2][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kurdish_dynasties_and_countries&oldid=1169042822 3]. I have even discussed fairly with the reporting user on a previous [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suleiman_al-Halabi#Syrian_theology_student? occasion]. So with this in mind, I would like to address my ANI properly.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish_Kurden,_part_2] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240149255 "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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240132334  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:   [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149433  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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish Kurden, part 2|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/SPI 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240149433 "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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149433  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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240093783 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 [[Corduene|another page]](citation 57) used one of my sources.  My main point was to either remove the selected POV at the introduction of the [[Origin of the Kurds|page]] or add more information thus providing a balanced perspective following [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]  But no, that introduction MUST remain. When I asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Kurds&oldid=1240149255 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyrtians&diff=prev&oldid=1156210003 It refutes my “claims” (those are not claims, but sheer facts)]. What a response!   I do not want to hear anything about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTTHEM&redirect=no 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 @[[User:Sikorki|Sikorki]] wrote: '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Volkish Kurden, part 2|@]][[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=prev&oldid=1240093783 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 @[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]]. Additionally, it appears that @[[User:HistoryofIran|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 @[[User:Liz|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. [[User:Volkish Kurden|Volkish Kurden]] ([[User talk:Volkish Kurden#top|talk]]) 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

Advice

Hi @Doug Weller! Hope all is well, I’m asking (considering you’ve been the only admin I’ve had a genuinely positive experience with in the past) for advice on my ANI.

Whilst the block has gone through and the appeal remains to be seen, I feel completely drained and exhausted from the amount of negativity that users and admins have sent my way.

What is it that I need? I feel out of breath from the cornering I have faced, it isn’t fair that anything I state is instantly sock puppeting or RGW! Volkish Kurden (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]