User talk:XYellowBananaX

Talk page

February 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 19:38, 3 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

In the Tatars article, I kept reverting an edit that involved replacement of a significant amount of the previous text (with more references) with a text that includes heavy bias (and includes less references). I think it was not tendentious but rather reasonable to undo a not quite constructive edit. And even if it wouldn't be reasonable, I think I should be let known on my talk page. Prior to the block, nobody wanted to discuss it there. There was no warning whatsoever.XYellowBananaX (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As this account has been created contrary to WP:SOCK, we will not engage this account in discussion. Please restart this unblock on your primary account, and ensure you use full honesty and open-ness as per WP:GAB (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 16 February 2013 (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.

I will not decline this unblock request, but, reviewing admin, please note that a CU check proved that this account is a sockpuppet.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiki article on sockpuppetry, a sockpuppet is an "online identity used for purposes of deception". With all due respect, this is not a sockpuppet account. Please keep in mind that this computer is not only accessed by me but also a couple of other people. Admitedly, I do recognise a couple of other usernames that have been linked to this IP, but not all of them. And even of those which were made by me, I never used any for the purpose of deception (I never made another username to win a debate), it's just that I don't edit Wikipedia often, and hence might have forgotten my log in info. Is there any chance of removing this ban at all? I am willing to promise, to: 1. only use this account, 2. discuss the Tatars editing content issue on the Talk page of that article, before reverting/editing anything again.XYellowBananaX (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider your unblock request. However, there are a few matters which I think need to be clarified, so that an informed decision may be made.

You say "There was no warning whatsoever." In order to assess whether that is true, it is necessary to know whether you ever had any warnings or messages related to this, under any other user name. For this to be done, can you please state the names of all other accounts you have used.
You acknowledge that you have used more than one account, but you deny that you have used them deceptively. Again, in order to make it possible assess whether that is so, you need to say what other accounts you have used.
You say "I do recognise a couple of other usernames that have been linked to this IP, but not all of them". Can you please explain how you know what other usernames "have been linked to this IP"? Even I, as an administrator, can't see what username has used what IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly oppose any unblock. This editor has been inserting the same scientific racism into the Tatars article, with various undisclosed alternative accounts and IPs (leading to the imposition of a rangeblock and of semi-protection), despite the clear consensus against it on the article's talk page and without ever bothering to discuss the issue with the other editors there. He was perfectly aware that his behaviour was not acceptable and a promise not to revert again before discussing is not good enough, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry, but I believe that it's in the best interest of Wikipedia that you're not allowed to edit any longer. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be no less than twelve accounts involved, according to the quoted checkuser evidence. It is difficult to concede that all are the result of memory lapses, or indeed, the accidental re-creation by "a couple of other people". I suggest that much greater openness is necessary in discussion of these accounts before any unblock could be considered. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, the accounts I made are XYellowBananaX, Фаиз_Махмудов, Muhammad2222, La050, Lalala505, AidepikiW69.XYellowBananaX (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, first of all, I'd like to clarify something. I've noticed what the user Lothar von Richthofen wrote on your talk page[1]. What he claimed about me adding "scientific racism" on the Tatar article is indeed true, but it's selective truth, because it's not all there was to my edits on that article. My edits also included the reversion of a >01:18, 23 January 2013<‎ edit by JackofDiamonds1 [2], which included massive content removal. He did that without any consensus on the talk page. If you take a look at the history page of the Tatar article[3], you see that on 2nd February, I seperately reverted that massive removal in one edit first, and then seperately added "scientific racism" in the other edit. Opposing the adding of "scientific racism" is no reason to revert an edit that reverted the massive removal of content without consensus.

Secondly, can you please explain how exactly is [4] supposed to be a clear consensus against insertion of "scientific racism" in that particular article? All points raised by those who opposed it seem to actually rather be discussing the use of "scientific racism" in general, rather than specifically the inclusion of it in the Tatar article (one member f.e. said "I would encourage very strongly not to use the racial typological classification such as "caucasoid" "lappoid" etc. as they are now only in use within Forensic anthropology (and other branches of American law enforcement) - but not in physical nor cultural anthropology - and because they index a pre-scientific understanding of human biological variation.", and another one "Well, the suffix itself may be so simple by definition, but the terms using the suffix carry a lot more baggage. You will certainly get raised eyebrows if you start throwing the term "Mongoloid" around").

An objectively based clear consensus against the insertion of such "scientific racism" better include arguments why it should not be included in the specific article, rather than discussing the use of it in general. The reason why these more generalised arguments shouldn't be quite enough is the simple fact that "scientific racism" is included in so many other articles on Wikipedia. Doing differently might make Wikipedia look less of an encyclopaedia and more of a playground for double standards.

"Scientific racism" is currently used extensively on Wikipedia, here's some examples of it's use in ethnic groups articles:

-the Crimean Tatars[5] "The Tats and Yalıboyus are Caucasoid, while the Noğays have some Mongoloid attributes",

-the Nogais [6] "Anthropologically they are a racial mixture of both Mongoloid and Caucasoid.",

-the Lai people [7] "Historians and Anthropologists are of the opinion that the Lai Community belongs to Tibeto-Burman of the Mongoloid stock.",

-the Jamatia [8] "Their appearance is mongoloid.",

-the Indian Gorkha [9] "The Gorkhas of India are a mixture of Indo-Aryan castes and Mongoloid-featured clans.",

-the Magar [10] "Genetically and physically, Magar people are Mongoloid/east Asian.",

-the Uchoi [11] "Their appearance is mongoloid.",

-the Kirati [12] "Broadly speaking, the Kirat people are of Rai, Limbu, Dewan, Sunuwar and other related Mongoloid ethnic groups.",

-the Hranghawl [13] "Their appearance is mongoloid.",

-the Indian people [14] "Modern anthropologists classify Indians as belonging to one of four major ethno-racial groups, which overlap significantly because of racial admixture: Caucasoids, Australoids, Mongoloids and Negritos.",

-the Mech [15] "They belong to Mongoloid race and speak mainly Bodo language.",

-the Sonowal Kacharis [16] "The Sonowal Kacharis are Mongoloid people.",

-the Zeliangrong [17] "Racially they are Southern Mongoloid and linguistically Tibeto-Burman.",

-the Reang [18] "Like many of the tribes in the north east of India, their appearance is mongoloid."

And this is just some random examples of the ethnicity articles that include it. It can also be found on some articles of other kind.

Honestly, my contributions have been well-intended. I believe I've been misunderstood due to my mistske of not discussing things on the talk page. I'm now willing to resolve article issues there. Please reconsider this block...XYellowBananaX (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope a reply is not too much to ask for. XYellowBananaX (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that User:Фаиз Махмудов appears to have been the main/first account of the accounts you operated, you should request your unblock on that account's talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, but it's impossible because I've forgotten my log in password. As I already mentioned, this is the reason I made another account in the first place. XYellowBananaX (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not able to request unblock on User:Фаиз Махмудов because I don't remember the password. When registering I didn't enter my email, so I'm afraid recovering the password might not be possible at all. I kindly ask an admin to either help provide me the password (if it's even possible?), or let me continue the unblock discussion on this account. Thanks. XYellowBananaX (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't understand this request. While is is conceivable that a new users might forget a password and create a new account, you are a person with twelve different usernames. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 19 February 2013 (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.