User talk:Black Future

I have created a request to apply discretionary sanctions to you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Black Future. Please reply there if you wish.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stepan Bandera shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for tendentious editing and edit warring at Stepan Bandera, and harassment at User talk:Ymblanter (abuse of warning template). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 21:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wish to reply to Ymblanter's report at
  WP:AE, you can do so here (below) and somebody will move it to AE. (Not me for the next 9 hours, because I'm just going to bed, but hopefully somebody.) Bishonen | tålk 21:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC).[reply
  ]

  Okay first off, let me just emphasize how utterly vindictive this user report is.

  Based on the diffs presented by the user, there is no clear reason to even request moderation since this all could have been settled directly or through consensus building. These are good faith edits that were reverted by edit-warring users who want to

  WP:OWN

  the page, from what I can see. That goes against the entire purpose of this site. Also, my edits were in line with the recommended "Be Bold" strategy: I remove, and when contested, try different means to find a better solution. The only person who is holistically enforcing 1 version of the page is Ymblanter.

  Diffs in question:

  Yes, in Diff #1 I removed a descriptor from the intro because it was a highly controversial statement, and that requires appropriate sourcing (see:

  WP:REDFLAG

  ), or more importantly, neutral balance in presentation so as to not push an angle on readers. Nothing wrong with that, or the other edits associated on 20 April. First, "Mhorg" reverted me, he then reverted me a second time. Then "Ploni" tag teamed in and called me a "Nazi-collaboration apologist" - utterly uncivil, and I did not break any rules or conduct codes in the process.

  I took some time off, came back a week later, and made an edit in line with the reasoning I already presented - bad sourcing and neutrality. That's when Ymblanter imposed this edit war on me. I then engaged him on the talk page here, where he was already arguing with another user who made the exact same edit as me, below another user who was also complaining about the page's lack of neutrality. There is a pattern going on - users edit & complain, "owners" revert, and NPOV templates get deleted as if there is no problem with the page. He was fully aware of the issue on the page before I even showed up.

  Diff #3 he cited as a violation was an entirely different matter. The article has 1 source: a social scientist writing a forward for a newsletter. That's horrible sourcing for something like this, and so, (as mentioned,

  WP:REDFLAG) "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Instead of removing, I applied attribution - the author's name and full quote. This was immediately reverted (diff

  ). If there are other scholars or authorities out there, add more! But don't delete attribution.

  Diff #4 is a bad faith citation, with a false description: "Removal again, no edit summary" - it was part of a couple edits (diff), which had summaries, which did not remove the content, but moved it to another part of the intro as a good faith compromise. My summary was "moving claim to appropriate section." This is part of consensus building, and if I can't be bold, try different edits or even touch other parts of the article without being reverted, what is going on?

  Ymblanter has engaged in an identical pattern of tendentious editing and warring with users on this very page:

  Not counting the other users involved, Ymblanter alone has shoe-horned this into the intro a number of times that I can see, reverting the intro on multiple users this month: 1 14 April; 2; 3; 4. He also did this exact same thing last year, only he was bent on adding "terrorist" to the intro rather than "nazi": 1 2. 3, 4

  "Topic Ban": Ymblanter first started calling for me to be "banned" on 27 April before he made this report on me here. This is after I first show up on the page. I'm in no way a single-topic editor here, so to kick me off a topic at first sight seems incredibly reactionary give his past history.

  He then called for it again above, then mocked me in the summaries that "once you get TBanned, we will remove the template" an hour later, while trolling the page to include "One user thanks that" in the template comments to gaslight me. Is this not trolling? Come on, guys.

  Regarding Mhorg's statement:

  As mentioned, Mhorg is involved in this edit war, so his inclusion of other articles I've tried to help needs scrutiny. The first diff he provided said I removed mention of a topic, but this is a lie, as the previous sentence already mentioned it. In the second diff, shows me removing something contradicted from the body of the article - a good faith edit that was reverted by GizzyCatBella (surprise). He then cites a bunch of diffs from Azov Battalion where I was trying to fix the article (which to no surprise, is still a contested issue even today), says I ignored an RFC (which I didnt know existed, then engaged in good faith enforcement of it after someone told me). It was all over that talk page and compliant with the rules. This is dog piling with a clear motive.

  Comments:

  Look, I dont think I did anything wrong here, and I'm clearly not the only one editing the page, nor the only one getting

  tag teamed

  here. This all could have been handled directly, or on the talk page, but instead I'm being attacked under a clear motive to silence others. "Revert and if they come back, try to get them banned" is not how things should be done.

  If I'm going to be suspended here, fine, but Ymblanter should have the same done to him. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke this site has become. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 13:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit what kind of demented report is that? Cited for not replying to a page I never knew existed (and instead used the article talk page) if I'm reading that right, the one guy brings up edit warring on a topic from a month ago that I a) extensively used the talk page for, enforced the RFC myself, and b) reached consensus. Is this for real? I contribute, use the talk page, and engage in constructive edits, and a tag team of anti-Ukraine trolls just blanket revert and block me? This is seriously fucked up. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 13:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Future Is the above what you like to be moved to AE as your explanation? Maybe take your time and think about what you wish to express? If not, then let me know, and I can move it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm still combing this attack over. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first year of this is an

Okay, guess it's time for a new account since it's clear you're only here to bully people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review

THREESTRIKES first -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh no, threatening to ban me after banning me for (lol). What a sad life you must lead. I pity you. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 19:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]