~2026-28706-2

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

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2026 (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).

~2026-28706-2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The claim that I am WP:NOTHERE seems to stem from two reports filed at the request for page protection where it was claimed by User:Amigao that I had engaged in vandalism (more on this later). However, any reasonable look through each of my edits will not have introduced anything seen in WP:VANDTYPES. Because there are at least 100 edits to this temporary account, I cannot enumerate each of these here, but I do request that an honest look through my contributions be made to decide whether they are "vandalism" or not. Finally, I will add that I had filed a report against User:Amigao on WP:ANI, but the report was seemingly not even reviewed. Per WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the reporter is the sole problem without looking at the context. I sincerely request that a closer and more honest look is made towards both my block and the report I filed at WP:ANI. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The issue here is your non-neutral editing and POV-pushing regarding the Great Translation Movement. Please read WP:RGW. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 18 January 2026 (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.

~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• I looked through your contributions. It is obvious that you were edit warring on the pages where protection was requested. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware you could "edit war" on talk pages, and on main space articles, there was no edit warring. If there were there would not have been any attempt at dialogue which was almost exclusively initiated by me each time. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  You were edit warring on the non-talk pages. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• @User:Voorts, you say that I am "non-NPOV", but this is not a fair designation. Even so, WP:RGW does not disallow my inclusions of sources that are critical of the topic, as I have not used those sources to present content in WP:WIKIVOICE. Meanwhile, removing some of the things I included, which once again were not made in WP:WIKIVOICE, but did clearly indicate that they were an opinion of an author who was reacting to the topic, falls under WP:NOBLANK. Finally, engaging in WP:GCONT does not indicate "agenda-pushing", and it is unfair to label me as being solely responsible for doing such when others have in kind made edits to suppress less favourable depictions of the topic. If others want to make edits highlighting the virtues of the topic in question, they are free to do so in a way that is within the rules, but none of my edits were uncited. Even if they were WP:SYNTH, there is still a case to be made that one could reasonably have arrived at the same conclusions I did from my cited source material. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Feel free to make another unblock request. Another admin will review it. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Whatever, it's obvious everything User:Amigao (Redacted) does gets protected because this site is crawling with Atlanticist think tanks and state operatives shilling anti-China and anti-Russia narratives while suppressing anything that contradicts Zionism or Atlanticism. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)