User talk:JordanKSM

This is JordanKSM's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your removal of text at Chinese people in Myanmar[edit]

Chinese people in Myanmar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here you removed 46,000 bytes of text from the article with the edit summary 'Removed jingoist edits'. You've repeated this removal a number of times. An editor reported you to ANI but no action has yet been taken. Such removals need discussion and agreement among editors. Be aware that if this happens again you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:. That's not "removal". There's an edit in February that restores old COPYVIO content that has not been accepted by the community. Did you even read the section? It's all about how the Chinese are superior. That's why so many users have removed it. JordanKSM (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained more at the talk page.JordanKSM (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Chinese people in Myanmar[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.

since you continued to revert after my above warning. If I read the talk page at Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar there is no evident consensus for your view. We expect that editors will follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution when disagreements occur, instead of trying to force their views into the article by reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A previous complaint about your edits of this article can be seen at this ANI link. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is wrong with you? Can you read what I write on the talk page! Or are you in cahoot with CCP? JordanKSM (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ANI was created by the Chinese user. Did the edition added by indef-blocked User:Backendgaming have consensus? The Chinese love to play the game. JordanKSM (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominated by egoist admins who love to kick others around & paid CCP editors. The project is hopeless. JordanKSM (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's sure your users are in cahoots. Using back-channel communication to mass revert. JordanKSM (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert it anymore. It's so ugly and speaks for itself. But I will re-add the KMT invasion that was removed by User:Yue without consensus. JordanKSM (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here, your user is using a nonexistent source to push POV. It's established at WP:ANI and WP:Dispute Resolution#Summary_of_dispute_by_Stress_theorist. JordanKSM (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to @Stress theorist: to see his views on this matter. JordanKSM (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you aren't aware, other users have raised their concerns on the talk page of User:SimeonManier. The concerns regarding the section have been raised so many times. It doesn't matter if it's 46k or whatever. It's a duplicate of similar sections at "Chinese in X" articles with only minor changes for the country. JordanKSM (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The admin has no understanding of the issue at hand, abused his power, and blocked based on my emotional replies that had been reverted by myself (the reporting user, who was also mass-reverting and pushing POV as others have pointed out, deliberately used diffs in such a way). First, can you see what's going on at Talk:Chinese_people_in_Myanmar#WP:DUCK_sock and Talk:Aung San. Users are adding content with fake sources WP:Dispute Resolution#Summary_of_dispute_by_Stress_theorist.

User:SimeonManier is a WP:DUCK sock of User:Backendgaming. He's restoring the "Trade and Industry" sections in all articles about "Chinese in X"; the sections are basically a racist rant against whichever country the Chinese reside in. The concerns have been raised on his talk page as well. The "Trade and Industry" section here is an exact replica of Hoa_people#Trade_and_industry with the same sources (Yos Santasombat, Amy Chua, etc., not a single specialist from the said country is included) and with the same unreadable massive paragraphs.

That's nothing racist about pointing out a cahoots of users pushing POV across a massive number of articles. If you want to see who is the real "racists", just compare the content I added to your "Trade and Industry" sections.

If you love to protect those cahoot of people who are conquering by the numbers, then I have no qualms. This project is doomed.

JordanKSM (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Your attacks on this page are enough to decline this request. I think you need to find another topic to edit about. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2022 (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.

@331dot: What attack? Have you seen a user indef-blocked for a rude reply? Which policy do you have? Isn't it an abuse of power? JordanKSM (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User_talk:SimeonManier#Your_Han_Chinese_chauvinist_edits and how he attacked others who pointed out his racist edits. JordanKSM (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block was based on the ANI report here. The diffs the reporting user used have already been reverted by me long before the report was filed. I replied emotionally when I saw the first block, based on 3RR, without warning, contrary to the established policies of Wikipedia. A suspected sock of User:Backendgaming has been adding 47k of unreadable content across numerous articles, just like User:Backendgaming did, and I was blocked for reverting. I made the angry replies in shock, but I immediately reverted the replies a few minutes later. Another user in cahoots with the suspected sock used those replies to report me to ANI. And then, the admin Indef block me for that? It's completely out of touch with any established Wikipedia policies. Notice that other users have drained my emotional energy by blatantly using fake sources (See Talk:Aung San). None of the admins here are willing to invest time in understanding the content dispute but judge extremely harshly based on little evidence they see at first sight. A little bit of humbleness and browsing through those videos here might be helpful. JordanKSM (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You crossed a really obvious line with your blatantly racist comments. "Motherfucking whites" indeed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:09, 28 July 2022 (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.

JordanKSM (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I don't care if you edited and altered your edits afterwards, but the fact is you made these extremely racist edits and attacks. And you can delete edits you don't like from your talk page all you want, but everyone can see them in the history and it's all quite clear. Canterbury Tail talk 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an emotional reaction to the block. I reverted it immediately. After the reverts, I didn't realize someone would see it, much less use it to my detriment. I apologize for those edits. That's a mistake on my part. I should have just taken a break for two days. But the problem was I strongly believed I was not doing anything wrong. I am okay with people want to keep that 47k of content. Few would be persuaded by the massive paragraphs and thingly veiled racial undertones. JordanKSM (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Anyway, I am okay with the block. I am okay with the stage of the articles as they currently stand. I won't appeal so long as no one massively alters or introduces fake content to important articles with high veiwership (Aung San, Myanmar, Ne Win, etc.). Aung San's article is poorly watched. So, there's just one problem. Many articles about famous Burmese people have a history of Chinese users claiming that person as Chinese. Such claims and rumors originating from Wikipedia have real-life consequences. JordanKSM (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Stress theorist per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SSH remoteserver. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]