User talk:Strivingsoul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Strivingsoul! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anders Feder (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

I have blanked your user page per WP:UP#PROMO. Please read and understand Wikipedia:User pages before adding it again. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I remember I had asked an experienced muslim Wikipedian about whether or not my user page violates WP:UPNOT. And he told me that it doesn't! Apparently Wikipedia allows some description of our personal beliefs on our page. And as for the movie, I have no connection or commercial ties with it. The movie was just recently released in Iran and Canada and it has received many positive reviews. And I thought it can help to counter the wave of Islamophobia in the West. And this has actually been one of the motives of the movie's producers. And that's also why I thought it is useful to share it on my page. However if it qualifies for "blatant" promotion I have no protest. But I really don't have any commercial relation with that! Strivingsoul (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I can't help but notice that in every comment you make and in every discussion, you appeal to an authority outside yourself for guidance, instruction, and insight. I'm genuinely curious, do you ever have your own thoughts and ideas, and do you ever think for yourself without appealing to other people or ideas? I don't mean to offend you, I just wonder if you have ever studied critical thinking and have applied critical analysis to your own beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: You're not offending me, and, in fact, it is refreshing to get a feed back in this site that is not loaded with personal attacks and prejudices as I had received lately in ANI. But as for your good-faith advice on critical thinking, I should say I have done that extensively and still do in my life. Critical thinking is not something to ever get enough of. But as for my beliefs, I've been studying both Modern and traditional thoughts for the last 10 years of my life. I have a wide interest in religion, philosophy, politics, economics and history, and through my studies I've learned about a myriad of different philosophical and ideological schools. But above all I've been blessed to be born in Iran and learn about a widely unknown philosophical/cultural heritage, i.e. the Shia Iranian cutlural heritage. So perhaps that's what makes me a little (or maybe very) different!
But as for your allegation of appeal to authority I don't see what example -- other than my above-mentioned appeal to a user to give me a perspective on an issue which is more or less influenced by subjective factors -- might have given you the impression that I appeal to authority "in every comment and in every discussion"! I thought his feedback was useful as he is more familiar with the general mainstream atmosphere in English Wikipedia and how my user page could be perceived and interpreted by the average Wikipedian in relation to WP:UP#PROMO. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally considered civil and polite to engage a user before you blank their user page.--Adam in MO Talk 03:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MfD discussion was closed as "keep". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to sign your posts.[edit]

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date.--Adam in MO Talk 03:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! And that was just a slip! Thanks for notifying me, though. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Using talk pages[edit]

Per best practices:

  • "To respond to a discussion already in progress, click the "edit" link at the section heading and add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it. When doing this, keep in mind the advice given below about indentation."
  • "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to."
  • Per WP:TOPPOST: "The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page, then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. A quick way to do this is to use the "New section" tab next to the "Edit" button on the talk page you are on. To avoid confusion, the latest comment in a thread should be posted in chronological order and not placed above earlier comments."

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Houthis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I've left the same message on SunniWarrior's page. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Virditas: Did you see that I had already warned SunniWarrior multiple times on his talkpage before reverting his repeated vandalism? Moreover, despite the requirement of WP:ONUS, I took the burden of opening up the talk page and demand SunniWarrior to stop mutilating the page content based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. Yet SunniWarrior continued with his vandalism. He must be blocked for ignoring multiple warnings yet I'm being accused of edit-warring for protecting the long-standing state of the page. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Viriditas was right--you were edit warring. Moreover, calling your opponents' edits "vandalism" in a content dispute is rarely a good thing, and the IDONTLIKEIT charge--well, we should just scrap that stupid essay since it always applies to both sides. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware until just now of this ridiculous remark, which is offensive whether you understand what is typically meant by the term "Crypto-Jew" or not. That your opponent is now also blocked doesn't take away from the fact that you cannot make such comments here. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I was simply describing a Pro-Israeli Jew who masquerades as a militant Sunni Muslim to push his Zionist propaganda into the page and the talk page. It seems that others have a monopoly to accuse me of all sorts of vices but I am expected to be a saint and take into account all the nuances of civility to the last tiny bit. There seems to be no balance in applying rules when it comes to me and my counterparts. Anyway, I was going to leave this message to your recent reply in ANI which I'm now blocked to even participate. Don't you think this block is unfair considering that I can not even participate in an ANI that involves me and a massive bandwagon biased charges against me? Here's the message I wanted to leave for you:

The reason I am urged to cite some referenced and substantiated political statements here is precisely because people are unfairly accusing me of things that can only be refuted by providing evidences that counter their allegations. How else I'm to respond when my views are repeatedly attacked as being anti-Semitic and fringe, while there is no shortage of sources and evidences that prove that they are to the contrary widely acknowledged but marginalized facts?! The other reason is that citing this information seems to be the only way I can counter several deeply routed systematic bias (including political and cultural) against the subjects that I've been working on. I often feel the need to broaden the perspective of Wikipedians who are extremely biased against my POVs. And isn't that an inevitable consequence of working against Systematic bias. Do you know an alternative better approach that I can defend WP:NPOV as affected by Systematic bias? Strivingsoul (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, you should have used different words. Or you could have let it be. Right now you look like your own worst enemy, and I wouldn't overestimate the broadening you have accomplished; that ANI discussion seems evidence of the contrary. Sorry, I'm just being a realist here. But don't take my word for it: place an unblock request and see if the next admin thinks I overreacted. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I wonder if your realism simply reinforces the strong prejudice I have been countering, and you yourself came in to oppose. Didn't you yourself (and a few others) rightly see that users are being strongly biased and unfair? And didn't you see merit in my opinions to challenge the obvious injustice against me? I thought with more tolerance and exchange of ideas we could convince others to acknowledge their prejudice but you seem to be killing this valuable opportunity right before its fruition. Having said that, I still feel the urge to thank you for exerting fairness when it is not popular to do so. Best. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin I'm probably closer to the status quo than other editors, at least in principle. Either way, the language that you used, I deemed it not acceptable; to put it more clearly, I think it verged into the antisemitic. And while I think that the ANI thread and the call for a site ban were unjustified based on the evidence presented, I also think that your somewhat...verbose and combative style of commenting does not contribute to a good editing atmosphere. Some of your opponents exhibit similar characteristics, it is true, but here it's your edits we're talking about. Believe, I do not like blocking in such cases, and by all means go ahead and place an unblock request. The SunniWarrior, by the way, is blocked indefinitely; I did that before I saw your comment directed at them. Best, Drmies (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to why you believe that because you think that some people are biased against you -- for which you've given ample cause -- Wikipedia civility policies are suspended in your favor when you take it upon yourself to insult other editors. They are not. You shouldn't place reliance on your suppositions that Drmies and I see merit in your positions or that we're "on your side." We simply feel that a ban at this time is a disproportionate response. To the degree you insist on being a disruptive presence, that stance can change, and I'm about one more violating outburst from you from flipping my position at ANI. Ravenswing 07:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: But where I have actually insulted anyone?! As for this case in particular, like I said, I thought I was just calling a spade a spade when I described a partisan pro-Israel Jewish editor masquerading as a "SunniWarrior" a "crypto-Jewish SunniWarrior". I admit I was wrong in assuming that my meaning would be understood despite providing a link to the actual fact I was pointing to.
I also know that you are equally bored and tired of this whole unintended mess, but like I also said to Drmies, how else I could respond to subsequent allegations against me? Am I not supposed to defend myself against unfair allegations and judgements? Isn't this the inevitable result of having a dozen commentators coming in and passing judgement based on pure knee-jerk reactions to an original post that has lumped together multiple unresolved issues with the clear intent of provoking that hurried judgements?! And from another perspective, wasn't this whole thing a blessing in disguise if it helps to improve the opponents' understanding of this whole debate over Israel, Zionism and anti-Semitism? I hope these are my last words for it's been already further ado. So as you say, it is perhaps better if I just shut up from now on and let the admins decide whatever they deem best. But please drop a link to this discussion in ANI so that others can also read this last related exchange. I can't post there for my temporary block as of now. And lastly, we finally didn't seem to conclude the debate over David Duke and his book. The ANI apparently did not address any of the original issues raised despite so much extension. So please also tell us what will be the next correct course of action, if I am allowed to still work in Wiki. Thanks. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First off, read WP:CIVIL. I don't mean glossing over the link; read the link. You will find, in fact, that you are not allowed to respond in kind even if you are insulted in obscene, gutter terms, and so blatantly that no one on Earth could mistake the intent. Your sole recourse, in such instances, is to alert an admin to the problem. As to when you've insulted anyone? Come now. I'm no more an idiot than the next editor. Perhaps this edit [1], when you call an editor "a typically paranoid Jewish settler of a genocidal state brainwashed to the core by Zionist propaganda." Or this edit, where you claim an editor is driven by "anti-Muslim prejudices ..." [2] Or this edit [3], or this one [4], and so on and so forth. These contain pejorative turns of phrase, and you plainly meant them to be pejorative. Ravenswing 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

An admin perceived my characterization of a Jewish user engaged in disruptive editing while masquerading as "SunniWarrior" as "a crypto-Jewish SunniWarrior" to be "verging into Anti-Semitism", and subsequently proceeded to block me for 72 hours based on that charge. In protest, I explained to him that I thought I was simply calling a spade a spade, and he told me that I should have been more cautious but admitted that he might have also overreacted by blocking me, and therefore he himself encouraged me to appeal the block, and hence my unblock request. I understand I should have acted with more discretion especially when there's already an extended ANI going on against me with some people accusing me of exactly that offense (which of course I have strongly rejected). I admit I should've acted with more forbearance with respect to WP:CIVILITY, and hence request appeal. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't seem to have any understanding at all of why you are blocked or why your editing is considered disruptive, and you misrepresent facts apparently because you genuinely can't see what the facts are, rather than because of an intention to deceive. (To give just one example: your claim that Drmies "admitted that he might have also overreacted", when anyone who checks the link which you provided can see that he said nothing of the sort.) I see no reason to believe that if you were unblocked the problems with your editing would suddenly disappear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2015 (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.

Do you realise that no, Drmes didn't say he was overreacting. It was rather a way to suggest asking for a third opinion. So, my third opinion is that the block wasn't an overreaction. I myself could've slapped even a longer block. Max Semenik (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxSem: Well, he suggested me an unblock request two times. So that's what I thought he might have believed. See his second suggestion. But anyways, I don't see how calling a spade a spade (and a disruptive one) warrants block. "SunniWarrior" clearly masqueraded himself as such while not being a Muslim or a Sunni. How could I have interpreted that in a positive way in addition to his disruptive editing? Strivingsoul (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that I need to participate in an ongoing ANI against me but this block prevents me to exercise my right. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no - editing Wikipedia is not a right but a privilege which is available to everyone by default but which we totally can revoke. If you need to respond to ANI comments, just post a {{helpme}} request to have your comments copied to ANI. Max Semenik (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxSem: But you didn't explain why I deserve the block at all! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(sighs) I see you didn't read WP:CIVIL after all, and that you persist in thinking that you were justified in your various insults to editors. You were not blocked for "Anti-Semitism," but for being deliberately insulting. (And that being said, no, you don't need to continue to post in that ANI. There's nothing you're likely to say you haven't already said in a dozen other posts there.) That being the case, I think it's time to strike my Oppose to that ANI; you're demonstrably in the I-didn't-hear-that zone. Ravenswing 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if SunniWarrior's name is incongruent with that editor's actual religious affiliations. SunniWarrior is out of the picture now, anyways, and is entirely irrelevant to the situation now. GABHello! 15:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: Come on, Ravenswing! If you want to ban me for having used unpleasant descriptions two or three times for persistent unpleasant, disruptive or aggressive behavior of two users, then also go ahead and ban Anders Feder and also each and every person on the ANI who have attacked me by all sorts of libels and canards! I'm sorry! But the ANI has miserably failed to keep up even a semblance of neutrality and objectivity and it just seems like a case of WP:BIAS to a tee! I want people there to say which Wiki policies I have violated in regards with David Duke's book by arguing from WP:NPOV to deserve a site or a topic ban?! I admit I have made some faults in the past (like having engaged in a few edit wars against aggressive POV-pushers) but have been trying to be cautious and reserved ever since. Yet there's basically nothing in my activities to warrant a ban, and it is vital for everyone to keep in mind that WP:CIVILITY goes both ways. If my counterparts are being persistently uncivil and aggressive towards me and have been mounting all sorts of libels and attacks against me, expecting me to be perfectly civil is just unfair, unrealistic and impractical! I wonder how one can not see that this is an extreme case of putting someone in a tight corner and hitting him on every spot and expecting him not say ouch! This is just outrageous! So if anyone recognizes this extreme injustice, they will see that it's best to just shut down that unnecessary mess in ANI and just allow the disputes be resolved in the talk pages while warning everyone to be neutral and objective in their attitude either towards the topics mentioned or the POVs being discussed. And believe me! This is not the end of the world if some admins admit that their proposals have been badly influenced by some political/cultural prejudice or an editor's devious agitation and framing. To the contrary this will prove that admins are as fair and conscientious as expected to correct some of their own extreme, misguided evaluations. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community banned[edit]

The result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Strivingsoul disruptive editing and soapboxing is that you are now community banned from the English Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been blocked in 16 Oct 2015 in conclusion of a heated, very lengthy and admittedly boring ANI discussion after a user filed several charges against me. I don't want to get into the details of that controversy for that would be reopening a can of worms. But ultimately I understand and admit that with a foresight of the unintended systematic bias by users against my views, I should've acted with more prudence not to cause disruption by getting caught in an erosive tension-filled argument on several issue (though this could've been prevented had my opponent not lumped together several issues in one discussion). Having said that, I think my return to editing would be a net positive to Wikipedia, because as my past record shows, other than topics of Islamic/Iranian politics, I also have a keen interest in Islamic theology and philosophy subjects and I think I can improve Wikipedia content in that field, and thereby I appeal my block. And I promise to stick to all Wikipedia rules, and act with more prudence and discretion to prevent dispute tensions in areas that can be potentially controversial. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not going to get yourself unblocked by blaming "unintended systematic bias by users against my views". It is *your* behavior that got you a community ban, and it is *your* behavior that you need to address if you want to ask the community to lift the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2016 (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.

The root of the problem is your views, not simply how others reacted to them. We're not expecting you to convert to Judaism or anything, but you've demonstrated that you're only capable of handling issues relating to Jews or Judaism with (to be blunt) blinding bigotry. Also, you've been site banned by the community. This goes beyond a mere block -- the community itself has decided that you are not welcome here and the community would have to decide that you are to be allowed back. A mere promise after you were given plenty of warnings is not going to cut it. The only thing I could see that might potentially help is if you agreed to a topic ban relating in any way to Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Blaming other people for reacting to your bigoted POV-pushing with quite reasonable moral indignation and calling them "opponents" hurts your chances probably more than agreeing to a topic ban would help, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against Judaism, or Jews as Jews. In fact, to the contrary, as a Muslim I have reverence for Moses, Mosaic Law and Judaism, and I have respect for Jews who act according to the Commandments of Moses (not to kill, not to steal etc), but it seems that Zionists have gone out of their way to prove how anti-Semitic indeed they themselves are by systematically violating each and every commandments of Moses throughout decades of their catastrophic occupation. Don't you think then that Palestinian Arab Muslims (Semitics by the literal definition) have a right to demand restoration of their land and dignity from the Zionists? As you see, you can't reasonably keep resorting to a falsified, propagandist term to suppress legitimate critical views about the modern state of Israel and Zionism in an academic discussion and, worse, to use your moderation privileges to protect Zionist-related topics from critical views. That goes against Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV which you should know better yourself as a moderator. With respect! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As one of those who supported banning you I'm not going to act either way on this unblock request, but I will point out to any admin looking at this that one of your last edits prior to your community ban was this, and allow them to make up their own mind about your agenda. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you want to prove by linking an opinion of mine which says promoting "seduction, greed and murder" by a supposedly "Jewish" filmmaker is beyond abhorrent! Or are you suggesting that "seduction, greed and murder" are amazing things to you!? Strivingsoul (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'd forgotten your gift for selective quotation. Your actual comment was I don't know what qualifies as hedonism or degenerate in your mind, but to me as a human being and a muslim, a TV-series that features "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ... [by] wonderfully wicked people" by an "openly gay Jews" is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Practicing Muslims and Christians (as well as practicing Jews for that matter) would also find it totally inappropriate for their families to watch a TV-series that portrays youth getting involved in things like alcoholism, pregnancy and AIDS.; for the benefit of those who understandably don't want to read the whole thread, the "evil incarnate confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians" in question is Beverley Hills 90210. ‑ Iridescent 10:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Are you doing Beverley Hills 90210's commercial work? The official description of "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ... [by] wonderfully wicked people" is more than enough to justify the "evil incarnate" rhetoric. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest that a topic ban from Jews, Judaism, and Israel would be insufficient, as this editor has shown a strong battlefield approach to Shia vs Sunni Islam too, and towards atheism. In short, what we have is an Iranian Shia Muslim who appears to have contempt for anyone who does not share the same political and religious beliefs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So that's how you respond to a good-faith appeal?! Like I said I have nothing against Jews or Judaism, or even atheists. You seem to ignore the whole context of my past references to atheism and "Jews". So what do you prove by repeating past allegations without reference to the context and counter arguments? Do you have to be a muslim to acknowledge that promotion of "seduction, greed and murder" are abhorrent? I didn't expect such a negative response to a good-faith appeal! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that the way you come across to others (did you see where I said "appears to"?) is at odds with what you say about yourself - but I'll strike it if you believe it is inaccurate. Please, take a step back and think about how your approach was completely ineffective in preventing your ban in the first place, and ponder on whether continuing that exact same approach is likely to be effective in getting you unblocked. Continuing to see no fault whatsoever in your own approach and blaming everyone else for not understanding you has, in my opinion, zero chance of getting you unblocked. That's all I really want to say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that! And I have already admitted that I should've acted with more prudence and discretion and will do my best to do so since then! But I can't accept that I have to be blocked simply because my views conflict with a majority of mostly Western Wikipedians. And that's what I meant by Systematic bias. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you've already continued with exactly the same approach in your replies to Iridescent, above, slamming a simple soap opera as "evil incarnate". That's the kind of hyperbole that I think needs to stop, and I'd say some sort of commitment to stopping it (and actually stopping it, here on this page) would help. Sure, there's systemic bias ("systemic", not "systematic" is the word, I think), but there are degrees of it. As far as our encyclopedia goes, we should certainly be trying to reduce systemic bias in terms of our coverage of topics (for example, we have massive coverage of mindless Western pop-culture trivia while only sparsely covering major cultural topics from the non-English speaking parts of the world). But the approach of judging the major Western English-speaking cultures by the standards of Iranian Shia Muslim values and condemning them as evil is way too far to the opposite extreme. You're welcome to believe that, sure, and I support your right to do so. But voicing your apparent contempt when you're trying to be part of an English-speaking community... well, you know how well that went down. Does that make sense? If you want your ban lifted, it would require a community discussion, and that would start with a new unblock request that a reviewing admin thinks is suitable to put before the community. What would such a request look like? I suggest, as well as pledging prudence, you should actually explain what you think was wrong with your approach in the past, and explain how you will change that approach when talking about Western culture, about Jews, etc. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee:, Sure, and I was going to write this before your new reply: ... I acknowledge that the main responsibility inevitably falls one me to keep up a smooth debate even with those who may sharply disagree with some of my POVs regardless of how I feel to be on the marginalized side. But perhaps with this past experience, I can expect involved moderators at least to better understand my situation (though, this is just a humble request not a demand). I only wish I won't have to explain all these again in my second block appeal, though these extensions seem to help improve mutual understanding and good faith. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you post another unblock request and let another admin review it and decide whether to ask for community discussion at WP:AN. I don't think you'll need to repeat all this in the request, just refer to your comments here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is my second unblock request for a block that was imposed on me over now a year ago in October 2015. I appealed for unblock once in June. I had the main discussion with an admin and I was told to appeal my block again. Since I was not sure I was going be actively contributing to Wiki soon after unblock I didn't appeal again immediately after. But now I'm back and demanding another appeal. As may be readable from my past discussions, I do have a understanding of basic Wikipedia rules such as civility and try my best to adhere to them (other than some edit wars early in my activities that I promise to avoid in future to my best), but when I was last caught up in a very lengthy and erosive debate on a sensitive topic on which I was singly on one side and most users on the other, some of my comments were perceived to be uncivil. (I had become I admit angry in the process, since I saw myself caught in a corner and attacked by several accusations). I understand my counterparts were not malicious and never meant to be. As in my previous block appeal, I blame it on Wikipedia systematic cultural/political bias that can be only lowered when users do their best to understand users from minority views and cultures whose views are misjudged based on the majority stereotypes. Besides, I also admit I should've acted with more prudence given the controversial nature of the subject which perhaps was never worth the trouble in the first place. I am also open to any further instructions by admins for making my interaction with the majority more convenient. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Read WP:NOTTHEM. You need to accept that you behaved poorly because of the hateful bias you have chosen to adopt, and the community does not believe that you will be a productive contributor unless and until you get rid of that bigotry. Your only chance of being unblocked is to admit that your behavior was in the wrong and no one else's fault; and also to either A) recant the bigotry you previously espoused or B) agree to a topic ban from all pages relating to Jews, Judaism, Israel, or antisemitism, broadly construed. Otherwise, no one is even going to bother raising your unblock request at the admins' noticeboard. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2016 (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.

@Ian.thomson: According to Wikipedia, can moderators who themselves have been involved in disputes (passing the most libelous accusations that were not necessarily supported by others) decide about their counterparts' privileges? And apparently I was not banned for "bigotry" but for violating civility law. There was no consensus (not to mention any objective proof!) that my views were bigoted. I only happened to point out some facts that were shocking for the "average Western Wikipedian!" Please tell me if I'm wrong by citing evidence or policy! Thank you! Strivingsoul (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't carry out the block, and am saying what any other admin would say. You said that David Duke's views weren't racist the closest to backing down you ever came was saying that "he's not racist now" (which is also so wrong that it cannot be politely described). I'm revoking talk page, because you're clearly never going to learn. If you ever wisen up and realize that you need to quit blaming other people for your own screw-ups, you can try appealing at WP:UTRS. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16842 was submitted on Nov 04, 2016 13:24:26. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Strivingsoul. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23643 was submitted on Dec 24, 2018 07:39:52. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Strivingsoul&oldid=1063733651"