TheDogsOfWar

TheDogsOfWar, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheDogsOfWar! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No clear reason given, only that I was supposedly making disruptive edits. I explained that I was attempting to remove a grossly offensive and racist section from the article Bloody Christmas (1963), which was being repelled by another user. This indefinite ban is grossly unfair, and against the principles of an open encyclopedia because it stifles and censors a particularly balanced viewpoint.I am franly shocked that Bbb23 would arbitrarily ban me, and frankly it is wrong. TheDogsOfWar (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. I'm frankly shocked at this "stifle and censor" nonsense. It was you who removed content you did not like. Bbb23 did not arbitrarily ban you; you were edit warring and casting aspersions. This is disruptive. In short, complaining in the way you did at the notice board instead of doing all the things you should have done was disruptive.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, at the very minimum, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Bbb23 may have other conditions he would add, but this is a start.Thanks,

   Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

And this is why the block is indefinite.

The article section that was deleted is contemptful of Greek Cypriots, and peddles Turkish propaganda in a POV Fashion. I urge you to address the accusations in detail, as I have gone to the trouble to address them for discussion. TheDogsOfWar (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me also be clear that I expect these concerns of racism and propaganda to be addressed. I will undo any edits that attempt to reinstate this section as is, edit war or not. I will never stop. TheDogsOfWar (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thanks for reviewing this request thread. I acknowledge the issues previously raised by Dlohcierekim were my own doing. The edit war involved me removing a section of text, which was not the way Wikipedia works, and that an opportunity for other community editors should have been made available via the talk page. I acknowledge that I was not arbitrarily banned, and that the ban was made indefinite (if heavy handedly) because I threatened to edit war with another editor. I await your further attention on this banning. For avoidance of doubt, this is not a sock puppet account. I had two previous accounts, as I recall, both of which I lost the passwords for, over the years, and cannot access. Thanks TheDogsOfWar (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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.