WP:CYCLE, or The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) - You made a bold edit. It has been reverted. (Multiple times now) The next step is to discuss - NOT to continually edit war and revert to your version before a discussion is concluded. What you've been doing is wrong. I'm going to revert to the last accepted version of Jared Taylor now. Consider this a warning to not revert it again before the discussion on the talk page is concluded. If you insist on continuing your edit warring, I'll make every effort to make sure you're blocked again by an admin. I'm all for assuming good faith but you've betrayed that assumption a dozen times; frankly, I don't think you're trying to make the article better, and I believe you are attempting to paint Jared Taylor in a more sympathetic light by removing and/or burying the term "white nationalist" in his article. Rockypedia ( talk) 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
My user page, which is temporarily relocated here, has said since (at least) 2010 that I have nothing to do with Malik Zulu Shabazz (whose biography I wrote, by the way). Please read WP:No personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Estonian wine for you! |
Thanks. I consider myself as someone with a wide but shallow knowledge, yet I never knew that the Baltic states were special cases in that they were not externally recognised as consenting members of the USSR. You seem an interesting guy who can bring a bit of colour to this website. '''tAD''' ( talk) 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
"why was the "opposition to trade agreements" outlying when renogiation of us-chinese trade is 'part of his platform'
". I can answer, since I'm the editor who put it there... As explained in thread
Talk:Donald Trump#Term 'terrorist countries', I hesitated describing something as "platform" not found under 'Positions' at the
Trump campaign website. (Why? To me at least, "platform" conveys "position paper" or something more documented that simply ideas/suggestions/values/motivations stated at rallies or given in speeches [e.g. the temporary ban on immigration from territories compromised by terrorism, Trump has said wasn't a "proposal", rather "suggestion"].) IMO it's probably inherently misleading to use "platform" for those things he doesn't document on the campaign website as 'Position'. (That was my rationale; I felt "platform" used as synonym for what might be simply idea/suggestion/value/motivation would be inaccurate and misleading and also
WP:SYNTH. [Of course, the outlying could have been located *after* the "platform" items instead of before them, perhaps that would have lowered the feeling of mislocation, but I'm not sure that would have been better.])
IHTS (
talk)
07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Your attempt to make an already-discussed change against consensus followed by a subsequent minor edit to punctuation looks like you're trying to sneak an edit through that you know isn't acceptable. I hope that wasn't the case. If it was, you can rest assured that it was a laughable attempt at subterfuge. If it wasn't, the first edit was still against consensus. Either way, you're getting close to a WP:ANI. I would advise you to stop. Rockypedia ( talk) 13:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Rockypedia (
talk)
23:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zaostao reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Edits like this have misleading edit summaries, because you are making multiple changes while only mentioning one. Those additional formatting changes make it much harder to see the content changes you've made. There's nothing wrong with having list-defined references in the template, and they are useful for articles like alt-right which have many repeated sources. At least stop altering them as part of the same edit as other changes, please. Grayfell ( talk) 23:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Edmund Kemper you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jclemens --
Jclemens (
talk)
07:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The article
Edmund Kemper you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Edmund Kemper for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jclemens --
Jclemens (
talk)
20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao, please send me an email please which is [my name here] at yahoo.com . Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 22:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I see you're still hard at work trying to eliminate all phrases from the Jared Taylor article that you believe cast him in a negative light. I will remind you again that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, via reliable secondary sources, not to polish the pages of a biography to make the subject seem more acceptable. Eliminating all mentions of "white supremacist", "white nationalism", etc. is directly contrary to the former, and if you continue to edit war over it, you'll be blocked, again, the same as last time. Rockypedia ( talk) 12:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The article
Edmund Kemper you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Edmund Kemper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jclemens --
Jclemens (
talk)
23:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple academic sources on the subject, such as this. Using them for sourcing would not be a policy violation. Note however, that I only mentioned them in one discussion long time ago, and did not use them in any articles so far. So, bringing this back in irrelevant discussions, as you do [1], is a little bit strange. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I rv your last edits to the lede. I have no problems trimming it but this is a touchy topic and you need to explain such a heavy load of deletions. Anything factually incorrect in the lede should, of course, be removed, but you need to be more specific. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
My contribution to the Pepe-the-Frog page, which you removed without any explanation, was supported by TWO reliable sources (VANITY FAIR, WASHINGTON POST). It is not your place to decide for yourself whether the contribution is right or wrong. That's not how Wiki works. At Wiki we post WHATEVER THE RELIABLE SOURCES SAY, not what we personally think. You're only allowed to remove my contribution EITHER if you think that the sources are not reliable (which would be silly--OF COURSE VF and WP are reliable sources) OR if you think the source articles did not say what I said they said (which anyone who can read can see they do say), OR if you think the contribution does not qualify as a "notable use" (which would also be silly--of course the appropriation of the meme by white-supremacists and David Duke is notable).
Also, if you're going to revert an edit, you must explain why you do so, on the TALK page. HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Rockypedia (
talk)
00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be slowly edit warring on Alt-right in the lead. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
First, let me say that as a German I take utter offence at the picture on your user page, which seems to idolize the most despicable and utterly disgusting period of my country's history. It is no surprise to me that it is accompanied by reference to the music of Wagner, which I personally find obscene, disgusting and simplistic.
Then you removed the fact that the 2000 election (in which Assad became president) had exactly one candidate from the lead paragraph of the article. You even called that material, I quote, "undue" in your edit summary. This is destructive, since the lead paragraph of an article shall describe its subject to give an impression that is as accurate as possible. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mathmensch (
talk •
contribs)
10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What exactly was I blocked for? For having an picture of an Arno Breker work and a Richard Wagner userbox on my user page? I didn't even get a chance to participate in the ANI. I'd like to be unblocked as I don't see what I've done wrong or how I've hurt the project in any way. Zaostao ( talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you have provided no reason to believe your behaviour would be any different if unblocked, and as your block was the result of a discussion on WP:ANI (which I did not participate in), there's no reason to lift your block at this time. Yamla ( talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (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.
@ Yamla: I was blocked for having offensive material on my user page, and the user page has been deleted. I'll leave it blank in the future if I am unblocked, other than that, I don't what to say as I don't feel I've done anything wrong here. Zaostao ( talk) 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you are on the right track, but a few points about your comment. Firstly, there's no requirement to "admit motivations" - it's nobody's business except their own, since Wikipedia allows pseudonymous editing. Their motivations on Wikipedia can be guessed by simply looking at their contributions - indeed I guessed them without ever looking at their userpage, and I'm pretty sure you guessed them too. Secondly, for a topic-ban to be enacted, there should be evidence presented of disruption requiring a topic-ban. That was not presented in the ANI discussion, or indeed anywhere. Retroactive invocation of behaviour are just that, retroactive justifications. Thirdly, on political topics, WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE are often in the eye of the beholder, so I do not automatically disbelieve their statement about neutral articles.
Having said that, I agree with you that their statements here about their motivation aren't fooling anyone. If Zaostao believes that they are indeed here to build an encyclopedia, a topic ban from far-right politics might give them the chance to show their work in other areas. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
First I'll say that although I take the point about ideologies made above, I think we should have no tolerance for racism.
On a more practical note, as Admins we have the right to set conditions for an unblock. [Clarifying after posts below: If any Admin thought that they had to unblock this editor, which I don't think should be done] I'd suggest a topic ban not just from far-right politics but from politics, religion and race. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I would hope Wikipedia does have a built-in anti-nazi bias, @ Rockypedia:, and I don't give a shit about the kind of people who might think that amounts to a "liberal bias". (What's a good emoticon for making a rude gesture at those people?) No unblock, no topic ban and no conditions, as far as I'm concerned. I did ask Zaostao to remove the objectionable stuff from from their userpage, above, but that was before I'd had a chance to look at their other edits (RL intervening), or I would have blanked and indeffed instead, just as Floquenbeam did. Thanks to TenOfAllTrades, whose work on ANI clarified the telltale userpage issue so well. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC).
Several comments:
I would like to see responses to Kingsindian's comments as I feel they sum this situation up very well, but @ Floquenbeam: What exactly is the reasoning for the block? You listed "nazi dog whistles on user page. go away" as the reason, what does the block prevent from happening to the encyclopedia other than me making improvements to it such as one of my last edits which cleaned up John Walters, one of the people who helped The Smiths at the start of their career? Zaostao ( talk) 17:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao: As I said in the ANI, it isn't likely that you'll be unblocked. And any block review is likely to fail. Your best bet may be to take WP:OFFER. Of course, you can simply tell WP to shove it and do something else with your time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
WP:CYCLE, or The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) - You made a bold edit. It has been reverted. (Multiple times now) The next step is to discuss - NOT to continually edit war and revert to your version before a discussion is concluded. What you've been doing is wrong. I'm going to revert to the last accepted version of Jared Taylor now. Consider this a warning to not revert it again before the discussion on the talk page is concluded. If you insist on continuing your edit warring, I'll make every effort to make sure you're blocked again by an admin. I'm all for assuming good faith but you've betrayed that assumption a dozen times; frankly, I don't think you're trying to make the article better, and I believe you are attempting to paint Jared Taylor in a more sympathetic light by removing and/or burying the term "white nationalist" in his article. Rockypedia ( talk) 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
My user page, which is temporarily relocated here, has said since (at least) 2010 that I have nothing to do with Malik Zulu Shabazz (whose biography I wrote, by the way). Please read WP:No personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Estonian wine for you! |
Thanks. I consider myself as someone with a wide but shallow knowledge, yet I never knew that the Baltic states were special cases in that they were not externally recognised as consenting members of the USSR. You seem an interesting guy who can bring a bit of colour to this website. '''tAD''' ( talk) 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
"why was the "opposition to trade agreements" outlying when renogiation of us-chinese trade is 'part of his platform'
". I can answer, since I'm the editor who put it there... As explained in thread
Talk:Donald Trump#Term 'terrorist countries', I hesitated describing something as "platform" not found under 'Positions' at the
Trump campaign website. (Why? To me at least, "platform" conveys "position paper" or something more documented that simply ideas/suggestions/values/motivations stated at rallies or given in speeches [e.g. the temporary ban on immigration from territories compromised by terrorism, Trump has said wasn't a "proposal", rather "suggestion"].) IMO it's probably inherently misleading to use "platform" for those things he doesn't document on the campaign website as 'Position'. (That was my rationale; I felt "platform" used as synonym for what might be simply idea/suggestion/value/motivation would be inaccurate and misleading and also
WP:SYNTH. [Of course, the outlying could have been located *after* the "platform" items instead of before them, perhaps that would have lowered the feeling of mislocation, but I'm not sure that would have been better.])
IHTS (
talk)
07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Your attempt to make an already-discussed change against consensus followed by a subsequent minor edit to punctuation looks like you're trying to sneak an edit through that you know isn't acceptable. I hope that wasn't the case. If it was, you can rest assured that it was a laughable attempt at subterfuge. If it wasn't, the first edit was still against consensus. Either way, you're getting close to a WP:ANI. I would advise you to stop. Rockypedia ( talk) 13:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Rockypedia (
talk)
23:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zaostao reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Edits like this have misleading edit summaries, because you are making multiple changes while only mentioning one. Those additional formatting changes make it much harder to see the content changes you've made. There's nothing wrong with having list-defined references in the template, and they are useful for articles like alt-right which have many repeated sources. At least stop altering them as part of the same edit as other changes, please. Grayfell ( talk) 23:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Edmund Kemper you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jclemens --
Jclemens (
talk)
07:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The article
Edmund Kemper you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Edmund Kemper for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jclemens --
Jclemens (
talk)
20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao, please send me an email please which is [my name here] at yahoo.com . Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 22:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I see you're still hard at work trying to eliminate all phrases from the Jared Taylor article that you believe cast him in a negative light. I will remind you again that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, via reliable secondary sources, not to polish the pages of a biography to make the subject seem more acceptable. Eliminating all mentions of "white supremacist", "white nationalism", etc. is directly contrary to the former, and if you continue to edit war over it, you'll be blocked, again, the same as last time. Rockypedia ( talk) 12:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The article
Edmund Kemper you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Edmund Kemper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jclemens --
Jclemens (
talk)
23:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple academic sources on the subject, such as this. Using them for sourcing would not be a policy violation. Note however, that I only mentioned them in one discussion long time ago, and did not use them in any articles so far. So, bringing this back in irrelevant discussions, as you do [1], is a little bit strange. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I rv your last edits to the lede. I have no problems trimming it but this is a touchy topic and you need to explain such a heavy load of deletions. Anything factually incorrect in the lede should, of course, be removed, but you need to be more specific. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
My contribution to the Pepe-the-Frog page, which you removed without any explanation, was supported by TWO reliable sources (VANITY FAIR, WASHINGTON POST). It is not your place to decide for yourself whether the contribution is right or wrong. That's not how Wiki works. At Wiki we post WHATEVER THE RELIABLE SOURCES SAY, not what we personally think. You're only allowed to remove my contribution EITHER if you think that the sources are not reliable (which would be silly--OF COURSE VF and WP are reliable sources) OR if you think the source articles did not say what I said they said (which anyone who can read can see they do say), OR if you think the contribution does not qualify as a "notable use" (which would also be silly--of course the appropriation of the meme by white-supremacists and David Duke is notable).
Also, if you're going to revert an edit, you must explain why you do so, on the TALK page. HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Rockypedia (
talk)
00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be slowly edit warring on Alt-right in the lead. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
First, let me say that as a German I take utter offence at the picture on your user page, which seems to idolize the most despicable and utterly disgusting period of my country's history. It is no surprise to me that it is accompanied by reference to the music of Wagner, which I personally find obscene, disgusting and simplistic.
Then you removed the fact that the 2000 election (in which Assad became president) had exactly one candidate from the lead paragraph of the article. You even called that material, I quote, "undue" in your edit summary. This is destructive, since the lead paragraph of an article shall describe its subject to give an impression that is as accurate as possible. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mathmensch (
talk •
contribs)
10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What exactly was I blocked for? For having an picture of an Arno Breker work and a Richard Wagner userbox on my user page? I didn't even get a chance to participate in the ANI. I'd like to be unblocked as I don't see what I've done wrong or how I've hurt the project in any way. Zaostao ( talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you have provided no reason to believe your behaviour would be any different if unblocked, and as your block was the result of a discussion on WP:ANI (which I did not participate in), there's no reason to lift your block at this time. Yamla ( talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (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.
@ Yamla: I was blocked for having offensive material on my user page, and the user page has been deleted. I'll leave it blank in the future if I am unblocked, other than that, I don't what to say as I don't feel I've done anything wrong here. Zaostao ( talk) 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you are on the right track, but a few points about your comment. Firstly, there's no requirement to "admit motivations" - it's nobody's business except their own, since Wikipedia allows pseudonymous editing. Their motivations on Wikipedia can be guessed by simply looking at their contributions - indeed I guessed them without ever looking at their userpage, and I'm pretty sure you guessed them too. Secondly, for a topic-ban to be enacted, there should be evidence presented of disruption requiring a topic-ban. That was not presented in the ANI discussion, or indeed anywhere. Retroactive invocation of behaviour are just that, retroactive justifications. Thirdly, on political topics, WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE are often in the eye of the beholder, so I do not automatically disbelieve their statement about neutral articles.
Having said that, I agree with you that their statements here about their motivation aren't fooling anyone. If Zaostao believes that they are indeed here to build an encyclopedia, a topic ban from far-right politics might give them the chance to show their work in other areas. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
First I'll say that although I take the point about ideologies made above, I think we should have no tolerance for racism.
On a more practical note, as Admins we have the right to set conditions for an unblock. [Clarifying after posts below: If any Admin thought that they had to unblock this editor, which I don't think should be done] I'd suggest a topic ban not just from far-right politics but from politics, religion and race. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I would hope Wikipedia does have a built-in anti-nazi bias, @ Rockypedia:, and I don't give a shit about the kind of people who might think that amounts to a "liberal bias". (What's a good emoticon for making a rude gesture at those people?) No unblock, no topic ban and no conditions, as far as I'm concerned. I did ask Zaostao to remove the objectionable stuff from from their userpage, above, but that was before I'd had a chance to look at their other edits (RL intervening), or I would have blanked and indeffed instead, just as Floquenbeam did. Thanks to TenOfAllTrades, whose work on ANI clarified the telltale userpage issue so well. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC).
Several comments:
I would like to see responses to Kingsindian's comments as I feel they sum this situation up very well, but @ Floquenbeam: What exactly is the reasoning for the block? You listed "nazi dog whistles on user page. go away" as the reason, what does the block prevent from happening to the encyclopedia other than me making improvements to it such as one of my last edits which cleaned up John Walters, one of the people who helped The Smiths at the start of their career? Zaostao ( talk) 17:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao: As I said in the ANI, it isn't likely that you'll be unblocked. And any block review is likely to fail. Your best bet may be to take WP:OFFER. Of course, you can simply tell WP to shove it and do something else with your time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))