User talk:Zaostao

Please read WP:CYCLE
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)
 * You're taking this all very personally. I'm just trying to write an article based on reliable sources instead of personal opinions and feelings. I've also not once removed or tried to bury the white nationalism tag, so maybe you can give an example of me trying to do so? Zaostao (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right here. Rockypedia (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I still see white nationalism in both versions there, maybe you've misread? You know someone who advocates white nationalism is a white nationalist and vice versa? Zaostao (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you've chosen to ignore the fact that you erased "white nationalist" and then later in the sentence described him as a "proponent of white nationalism". Not at all the same thing, you know that, and your attempts to make Taylor more sympathetic will be reverted as non-NPOV. Good day, sir. Rockypedia (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The question I asked was "not once removed or tried to bury the white nationalism tag, so maybe you can give an example of me trying to do so?", you have not given me an example.


 * Also, "'white nationalist' and then later in the sentence described him as a #proponent of white nationalism'. Not at all the same thing", they actually are exactly the same thing. For example, a communist is someone who is a proponent of communism, a fascist is someone who is a proponent of fascism, a white nationalist is someone who is a proponent of white nationalism. As I said, you seem to be taking this all very personally. Zaostao (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If they're exactly the same thing - then why did you change it? Rockypedia (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To match with the advocate of "race realism" line, I then changed that to "race realist" to go in line with white nationalist description. Zaostao (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Educate yourself
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)


 * My fault, I thought the Malik Shabazz who wrote the Malik Shabazz article had something to do with Malik Shabazz. It's interesting that the Malik Zulu Shabazz article does not mention groups such as the ADL and SPLC calling him an antisemite when an editor who is fond of term "jewboy" wrote it though. Anyway, thanks for educating me. Zaostao (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Can't read, eh? The Anti-Defamation League describes Shabazz as "anti-Semitic and racist" and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s Intelligence Project's Intelligence Report, which monitors what the SPLC considers radical right hate groups and extremists in the United States has included Shabazz in its files since a 2002 Washington, D.C. protest at B'nai B'rith International at which Shabazz shouted: "Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!"
 * When I wrote the article, he was described as an antisemite and racist in the first paragraph, but another editor said that violated WP:BLP. Go figure. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you using "can't read" in a disparaging way? If so, i'd ask you to refrain as I don't appreciate ableism on my talkpage. Zaostao (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump lede
"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, 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)
 * Thanks for the detailed response, that's a good rationale. It just read to me that its outlying position along with the "he regards as unfair" bit was to prod Trump for not being a free trader/being a crude protectionist. I agree with you that his "platform" should be listed as what he states as his positions on his website, and that other platform related but not specified on his website should be used with less concrete wording such as, as you mention, suggest. Zaostao (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you, what does "to prod Trump" mean, and how was the outlying position doing that? You agree "platform" s/b restricted to items on his website, but here you relocated "unfair trade agreements" text after descriptor "platforms". (What am I missing?) IHTS (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was saying I agree with that suggestion now having heard your rationale. I did not know of your reasoning for placing the unfair trade agreements line outside the platform bit before I made the edit. Admittedly, having re-read it, my last reply does not accurately convey what I was trying to say but i'm going to blame that on the fact that I had just woken up. Anyway, again, thanks for the detailed response. Zaostao (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx for that. And I'm leaning to not disturb your change, because 1) you're not the first editor to relocate the outlying material as you did, and 2) any "fix" I can think of is worse than the disease. Glad we talked here. Ok, IHTS (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 Jared Taylor
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)
 * "sneak through"? My question hasn't been answered on the talk page for over a week now so I made a bold edit in hopes that someone might answer it. Editor consensus does not supersede NPOV. Zaostao (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your statement "Editor consensus does not supersede NPOV" is a classic straw man. The consensus reached was that the version currently up (before you attempted yet another change) was NPOV. It was your opinion that it was not NPOV; however, you're the only one that held this opinion, and you keep trying circular arguments to keep the discussion going after consensus was reached. You were advised to take it to an RfC if you still wanted the lead changed. I posit that the reason you haven't done so is that you know you're wrong, and an RfC would only confirm this, so you resorted to waiting a week to see if anyone would notice you sneaking (yes, sneaking) past the change again. I'm done here as well; if you make the change again, I will revert it. If you violate 3RR, I will make sure you are blocked for doing so. I've said all there is to say and I won't respond again unless you raise the issue at an RfC. Good day. Rockypedia (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's actually stated very explicitly on the WP:NPOV page. I'm not trying to force my opinion, because that would be OR, i'm trying to represent sources such as The Wall Street Journal who think his status as an author is notable enough to call him so. I disagree with the "sneaking" verbiage, if you look at my contribution history, strafing edits are very common. Anyway, I'll ask you here since you don't want to answer it on the talk page, what authority do you have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when RS disagree? Zaostao (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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)

Edit warring at Jared Taylor
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the reverting editors sidestepped the 3RR rule (I made 3 reverts, they 4) by using WP:TAGTEAM, as all the reverting editors were the same editors who refused to answer my question on talk page. I don't think this is a ridiculous accusation either as if you look to the top of this page, the reporting editor in this dispute stated he'd "make every effort to make sure [I am] blocked by an admin." Zaostao (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "If you insist on continuing your edit warring, I'll make every effort to make sure you're blocked again by an admin." You are now posting an out-of-context quote to make it seem like you were being threatened, when in fact, no one reported you the first 25 times you were making your disruptive edits, and only warned you instead. You didn't heed the warning, and even now, you won't own what you've been doing. I have my doubts that you're here to make positive contributions and work with other editors peacefully. I hope you can prove me wrong. But I'm not holding my breath. Rockypedia (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm here to improve the encyclopedia and challenge ideologues tainting it. Zaostao (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ref style
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)
 * Yeah, I didn't understand your reversion reason as my edit added new refs, it didn't reformat preexisting refs so I did "restore" the refs I mentioned. Genuinely not trying to be combative or annoying here by the way, so apologies if it seems that way. Zaostao (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool, it just makes the diffs harder to read. If you're using visual editor, I don't know what's going on. If you're not, making incremental changes solves the problem. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edmund Kemper
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)

Notification about new RFC
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)

Your GA nomination of Edmund Kemper
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)

Your edits
Zaostao, please send me an email please which is [my name here] at yahoo.com. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
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)


 * See WP:COATRACK. Zaostao (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're already aware, WP:COATRACK applies to articles that "ostensibly discuss its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." As Jared Taylor clearly does discuss Jared Taylor, and does not focus on American Renaissance, the attempted use of COATRACK isn't even close to applicable. Continue your discussion of this on the Taylor talk page, if you wish, but you're clearly in the wrong here. Rockypedia (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * See the last line of the lede on WP:COATRACK. Zaostao (talk) 12:42, 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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)

Your GA nomination of Edmund Kemper
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)

Reply
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, is a little bit strange.My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this another joke about wikipedia policy or am I supposed to take this comment seriously? Zaostao (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am telling this seriously. The totalitarian system currently built in Russia is a subject noted in a large number of publications. Now, speaking about the nickname of the leader (this is a different subject), I do not really know if such an article would survive AfD, but there are numerous publications about this too - in books (,,, and a lot more), so, if anyone wanted, the creation of such page would be a legitimate business. I simply do not have time for this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So it clearly wasn't a "joke" and you do actually believe Putin is like Hitler, and that he "does not deserve a decent BLP page." That's good to know. Zaostao (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I think he deserved a decent BLP page, of course. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So it was a joke? Okay, then is this also a joke? I'm sorry if i'm being obtuse, I guess it's just a bit difficult to discern whether you think wikipedia policies should be respected or not when you joke about them so much. Zaostao (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia
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)
 * I went at it with a hatchet as the lede was in terrible shape. The whole article ideally needs a rewrite and BOLD edits are usually the most effective for articles like this. I'll discuss the changes on the talk page if you want, but the lede is absolutely terrible at the moment: incoherent, not chronological, incomplete and repeats some information. Zaostao (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the Frog removal of my contribution
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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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)

Edit warring on Alt-right warning
You appear to be slowly edit warring on Alt-right in the lead. Please stop.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop leaving messages on my talk page accusing me of edit warring. Zaostao (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, people would be less concerned with you edit warring if you weren't edit warring. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Zaostao, we are generally required to leave warnings before requesting admin intervention. It's somewhere between a courtesy and a requirement.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Warning for what? Clearly not edit warring. Please let go of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Zaostao (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I linked the diffs on Talk:Alt-right. You've made the same change 5 times in the past week.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you and other editors have reinstated challenged material without discussing any of it on the talk page, are you bragging about this? If so, please let go of the battleground stance, it's very petty. Zaostao (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad
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)
 * What are you alluding to? If you're trying to imply that I am a Nazi, that is a clear personal attack and I am gravely offended. It's also a fallacious guilt by association: the Nazis supported universal healthcare, does that mean single-payer healthcare is Nazi ideology?


 * Commenting on the content, not the contributor though, the first paragraph is for information integral to the subject's notability. In my edit, there's still clearly information that "Assad received a near totality of the votes in uncontested elections where other candidates were not permitted to run against him," and if you look at the rest of my changes, I clearly removed actual sympathy towards Assad. I hope you withdraw these bad-faith accusations towards me and self-revert. Zaostao (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I will reinstate your removal of sympathy towards Assad. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the software did not even remove that. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was asking you to revert your change which re-added the non-integral information to the first paragraph of the lede. See Ronald Reagan or some other FA quality article as an example. Zaostao (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

AN/I Notice
There is currently a discussion at 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)
 * Added a header to this notification for clarity. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Zaostao, please remove the statue image and the bible verse from your userpage. As explained here, they are highly offensive, especially taken together. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Don't bother, I've blocked you indefinitely and deleted your user page. You've been blocked before, you know how to request an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * Someone who posts coded pro-nazi and antisemitic propaganda and doesn't feel as though he has done anything wrong has no place here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What effect has the Arno Breker statue or anything else on my user page had on the project? If I was an antisemite, why would I have had an Austrian School userbox with an image of the Jewish economist Ludwig von Mises on it on my userpage? I can understand telling me to remove the material and I would have complied with 's request, but an indef block? This just seems punitive. Again, if I was an antisemite or pro-nazi, why would I improve Akiba Rubinstein's article? Zaostao (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This edit and this ensuing discussion might add another piece to the puzzle here. This has been a long time coming. Parabolist (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your account looks very much like someone's sock, and I don't understand why someone would use a sock in this case, but that's irrelevant. Yes, I made no effort to hide that edit. You've linked the discussion where I explained that it was a spur of the moment edit and apologised, and I've made no such edits since. As I say above, this block just seems punitive. Zaostao (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your disruptions on Jared Taylor and alt-right coupled with the racist diff above and the Nazi stuff on your user page amount to a preventative block. You've already demonstrated disruption. Now we know it's ideologically motivated.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was blocked once because of edits to Jared Taylor—for going over 3RR to add the word "author" to the lede. I was reported again and not blocked as I didn't do anything wrong. Saying I've disrupted alt-right is strange as I discussed the issue you brought up on the talk page, settled the dispute and thanked me for my edit. Anyway, that was about removing anti-Islamism and antifeminism and you're accusing me of being a racist... so my pro-Nazi bias caused me to remove anti-Islamism instead of white supremacism or antisemitism? And again, why would I improve Akiba Rubinstein's article, and why would I revert someone who removed detail about serial killer Joseph Christopher killing primarily African-Americans if I was a racist Nazi making ideologically motivated edits? As I say, this just seems punitive. All it prevents is me bringing more articles like Edmund Kemper up to GA status. Zaostao (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm a little conflicted on Zaostao's eternal block. On the one hand, his POV-pushing has been obvious for a long time on multiple pages, and in fact, the above discussion's diff links (and some more diffs linked in the discussions linked above!) have led me to read passages by him that I hadn't seen before, that make his ideological motivations even more clear. Another problem is that he still isn't willing to admit these motivations, as he states above, despite the mountain of evidence.
 * On the other hand, though, I don't actually think he should be blocked indefinitely for his ideology; I think that's a dangerous road and if we only blocked editors that brought a certain POV to their contributions, we run the risk of supporting the assertion that Wikipedia has a built-in liberal bias. As a prerequisite of lifting the block, I'd say that at a minimum, he'd have to come clean and state his motivations for his edits (his previous statements were a lot of BS about how he was trying to keep the articles neutral). After that, a ban on editing certain articles might be appropriate, like anything having to do with white nationalism, etc, since I don't think he can bring himself to be neutral on those topics. I'd support his appeal under those conditions. Rockypedia (talk) 05:02, 6 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 &#9821; &#9818; 08:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your fairness on NPOV, again, I don't think I've been on some crusade at all, but I'm repeating myself in saying why I think so. I don't agree with a topic ban as it implies that I'm trying to push a POV, but there are articles completely unrelated to politics that I want to improve (mainly Croatian bios like Krešimir Ćosić and Ivan Šarić, and other articles which I started on but didn't finish) that I could be working on. Zaostao (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that Zaostao appears to have had a pre-prepared (and perhaps pre-planned) list of edits he made that "prove" he's "not a Nazi". Would someone who had been editing here for almost a year have a pre-rehearsed spiel about how he is not an antisemite with a list of edits he made to Jewish topics if he wasn't already planning on getting blocked for posting Nazi propaganda on his user page? Of course he should explain why he posted Nazi propaganda on his user page and how he seems to have had a pre-planned list of "non-antisemitic" edits. Additionally, note that his comments here have consistently neglected to explain the bible verse; the reason for this is almost certainly because he can't explain it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also that in the section above he appears to have been doing the old Nazi "I'm not a Nazi -- liberals who support universal health-care are Nazis!" thing. The more we read of what he has written, the more obvious it becomes what was really going on. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He also hasn't explained this (Quoting one of 's comments at ANI)) "The four consecutive edits to his user page between 15 June and 26 July have the edit summaries Replaced content with '1.', 4. 8. 8.". ThePlatypusofDoom  (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That was puerile, as with a lot of the stuff on the user page (I had a flat earth userbox on there as well... is that supposed to be taken as a serious POV and make me incapable of editing Earth?), but again, what effect has it had on the project? Zaostao (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you have no explanation for why you had a bible verse about how "the Jews" killed Jesus on your user page? That's good. I wasn't seriously worried you might have a legitimate explanation, but it's nice to know I was right. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Explanation for what? It's a bible verse, I'm not renouncing the bible. In combination with the rest though, it seems antisemitic, I agree—although as I said above, I had the Jewish economist Ludwig von Mises on my userpage too—but I have not made any antisemitic edits so my antisemitism (I'm not even going to challenge this at this point, people are set in the view regardless) does not interfere with my editing, and there's no preventative reason to block me. Just a punitive block for me being a "racist", "antisemite", "Nazi" etc. Zaostao (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (on an unrelated note: 's comment in the ANI discussion was great, possibly I should use my time more efficiently}
 * No, it doesn't "seem" antisemitic "in combination with the rest". It is antisemitic. The gospel of John is the most antisemitic of the canonical gospels, and the claim that the Jews were the ones who killed Jesus has been the cause of countless incidents over the past 2,000 years. You gave the chapter and verse rather than the actual quotation because a literal translation like the NRSV your antisemitic intent would have been obvious, and if you used a sanitized version like the other one quoted on ANI it would have watered down the antisemitic message you were clearly trying to send. You did make antisemitic edits -- you made them to your user page. Whether your edits to the mainspace were overtly fascistic is beside the point, because we don't ignore edits to your userspace. It is not "punitive" to block you for posting racist propaganda on your user page, and it is equally not punitive to maintain the block when you are even now refusing to admit your obviously racist intent. Your above comment very strongly implies that you will do the same thing if unblocked. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated above that I would leave blank my user page if I was unblocked. I'm not even going to argue against the racist propaganda claim, but I didn't put John 18:36 to signal/dog whistle/propagandise to whomever (You overestimate the amount of fascists on WP if you think that would have any effect anyway), it was to put across my views in a roundabout/joking fashion. I may as well just have put this instead; that would 'signal' a much greater degree of antisemitism than a bible verse or Die Partei—which I do believe can be removed from Nazi association, Breker's sculptures are nearly on par with Michelangelo's in my view. And yes, okay, fine I made antisemitic edits to the userpage, but again, how has this hurt the project? I've not made antisemitic edits to any article and do not plan to start, so there is no preventative effect in the block. I do understand the reaction though; often where these type of views are expressed there exists an echo chamber, and the echo chamber mentality/triviality about serious things does not go across well with people distanced from the echo chambers, but this block is just punishment. Zaostao (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What are these "views" that you wished to put across in a roundabout/joking fashion? That Jews killed Jesus? That his blood remains on "[them] and [their] children"? So you now admit that you were dodging the question all the previous times when you insinuated that their was nothing antisemitic on your userpage and that it was in fact intended as antisemitism. I know there are a lot of antisemites on Wikipedia (heck, if Holocaust-denial is in itself a form of antisemitism, then denying that antisemitism exists in the New Testament -- something a lot of Christians do -- is a weak form of the same) and blocking them simply for holding these antisemitic views is not feasible. I think your block should stay in please because it was only under extreme duress that you stopped coyly denying that your userpage was intended to cause offense, and so we have no reason to believe that just because you say you won't repost the same material to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaostao you won't create a subpage or post something on your talk page. Your repeatedly denying any intent to cause offense with the offensive material on your user page is a clear indicator that you do not think you did anything wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See "joking fashion" and "antisemitism (I'm not even going to challenge this at this point, people are set in the view regardless)" in above comments. I've pointed to examples of doing things an antisemite wouldn't do and I haven't made any antisemitic edits to mainspace, but people are set on seeing me as an antisemite so I may as well just argue based on the perception. Again, what am I supposed to do or say in this situation? Remove the material? It's already deleted. As I said, the reaction is understandable as this type of stuff is commonplace in echo chambers, and wikipedia is not the place to bring the echo chamber speak—which I've acknowledged and adhered to for 99.98% of my edits. I don't know what to say though, I genuinely didn't think Die Partei was objectionable, and Wagner is definitely unobjectionable in and of itself—I added it before any of the other stuff IIRC, but yes, the John verse was crude and the 1,4,8,8, was just childish/stupid. I apologise if I caused offense—this stuff had been on my userpage for months and 2 days ago was the first time anyone mentioned it, but what am I to say?
 * I can understand your reaction though again: re-reading, I should have removed all of it when above person complained and I did respond in a needlessly snide way, but I didn't think Die Partei was cause to insinuate I'm a Nazi pushing a POV on Bashar al-Assad (my edit has since been reinstated by an admin). Still though, what effect has this had on the project? What negative effect does my block prevent from happening to the encyclopedia? I haven't broken any promises before and what would motivate me to try to sneak some antisemitic/Nazi/whatever stuff in? I don't expect to come across sympathetically here considering the circumstance, but I am here to improve the encyclopedia. I've made expansions to obscure, uncontroversial articles like this 1->2, 3->4, created obscure, uncontroversial articles like this one, and took this unrelated to politics, race, etc., article from this mess to GA status. Zaostao (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember my own edits. Why would I make those edits if I was a racist, antisemite, neo-Nazi etc? It doesn't make sense. Please show me antisemitic or racist diffs I've made. Please show me some evidence of me actually hurting the project, because if having some stuff on my userpage is all the block is for, then this is just punitive. Zaostao (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can weigh in here on one page, at least. You wasted a ton of everyone's time attempting to whitewash the Jared Taylor page, all the while claiming you were trying to make the page more neutral, using your own twisted interpretation of any Wiki policy that you thought you could bend to your purposes, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, you're still claiming that your support for white nationalism, Nazi ideology, etc, was not the driving force behind those edits. You haven't even really admitted that you support those ideologies, which would at least be an honest start. I don't know if you live in the US (I suspect you do), but if you do, it's certainly legal to have whatever opinions you want to have - but you can't edit here if you're not being honest about your motivations. Rockypedia (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going into the same discussion about Jared Taylor, but that discussion went from the talk page to the BLP/N and back and there was no consensus to include the contentious term so I don't see why it needed to be re-added without consensus. Anyway, think about the reverse, where have I made any edits putting contentious labels into articles? Negative terms into some communist article or revisionism on the Holocaust article or something actually Nazi? Again, those edits just aren't there in my contribs so I don't know how I'm a racist Nazi making ideologically motivated edits. And I don't know what you want me to admit, I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Do you want to know my actual in-real-life political party or philosophy? Zaostao (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments about conditions for any potential unblock
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 am strongly opposed to an unblock, no matter what the conditions. Reality check: you're talking about us bending over backwards to try to help a pro-Nazi anti-semite (blatantly signalling to other pro-Nazi anti-semites), to edit here. This is not some flippant accusation, it is demonstrably true.  Why the fuck would we want to do that?  This is not a rhetorical question.  Really: why would we want to do that? There are some people above who, apparently, don't care if someone is driven by hate or not, but feel that "anyone can edit" is far more important than "no vile assholes".  But you're actually smart, Doug, I know you well enough to know that.  And over the years I've seen other people who I respect take a similar tack; a grudging "well, I guess we're obligated to try to get this to work, so what topic ban wording should we use?"  No, we are not obligated to try as hard as we can to find a little corner of the encyclopedia where vile humans can edit in peace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with Floq, including the "what the fuck" part. Drmies (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On a visceral level, I'm with you as well. On all those points. But after thinking about it for a minute, you realize that pro-Nazi anti-semites are going to edit here anyway, regardless of whether they are banned or not, and in fact, they are editing here anyway, right now. I'd rather know what I'm dealing with than have to guess. I see the other side of the argument as well; that is, admins should draw a line at some point, and say, "You are so vile and hateful that you don't get to edit here." In fact, I sort of agree with that, at least in principal. I guess I feel that in practice, it's more practical to allow them to edit (because they're going to anyway - does anyone here really believe Zaostao has only one account? I don't), while topic-banning them from problem areas. It's a tough call. Rockypedia (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my only account. Zaostao (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But if topic-banned in one area, they'll just use a sock to edit in other areas. It makes no difference.  So, there's no harm in telling Mr. 1488 to fuck off.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Damn. I didn't make myself clear. I would not unblock this editor. I did say "potential" aiming that at any Admin who even thought about unblocking this editor, and I thought my first sentence made my feelings clear about this editor ("although it take the point", but it didn't. This editor is here to spread their hate. I'm bolding my comment about no tolerance for racism. I wanted to get my point across quickly in case someone did come around thinking about an unblock. Which could happen.  Doug Weller  talk 12:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. That makes much more sense than my interpretation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We already don't let everyone edit on Wikipedia; some personal beliefs are considered too heinous. I agree with Floq here. And there's already been demonstrated disruption. If this block hasn't occurred, another AN3 would have likely resulted from alt-right. They were already blocked once and had a second AN3 that went stale because no admins wanted to deal with it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that being a pedophile is a lot different than holding far-right political views. I also don't see why there are userboxes for fascism if being far-right means you should be blocked from editing. Zaostao (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What racist or antisemitic edits have I made? What pro-Nazi edits? They're not there. I've made ~1500 edits and I think I've been on here for nearly a year, and there aren't any pro-Nazi or whatever else edits. Zaostao (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's all those edits you made to your userpage, for starters. It turns out that advertising your neo-Nazi or white-supremacist attitudes isn't compatible with Wikipedia's collegial, collaborative editing environment.  So...no, you won't be unblocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After seeing this last comment by Zao, where he still refuses to acknowledge that his ideological viewpoint was the driving force behind his edits to the Jared Taylor page (among others), I see there's probably no hope. Sorry Z, I tried. I personally still disagree with the decision to completely bar you from editing, but I am in the minority, and you're not really making a case for yourself; you're just confirming what everyone's been saying about you. Rockypedia (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Zao is evil. Zaostao is backward/benighted, also retarded in mentalno zaostao. Regardless, I disagree with POV pushing claims. The contentious label issue on Jared Taylor, that was from a comment made by about neutrally introducing the subject before using any contentious labels/subjective language. Again, I haven't made racist/antisemitic/pro-Nazi/whatever edits, I see my contributions to Jared Taylor as being NPOV—although I admit I was uncivil at times, and I apologise for that. Zaostao (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You must really deeply believe that you're dealing with people much less intelligent than yourself if you're continuing to insist that your contributions to Taylor were NPOV. I assure you that's not the case. It's starting to make me wonder about your sense of reality - do you really think, in the face of all your neo-Nazi and white nationalist evangelism, that anyone believes your edits were motivated solely by desiring to make Wikipedia better? It's beyond laughable, and your continued denials are laughable as well. It's over. You finally attracted enough attention to be completely banned, and you're crying about it? Be a man and at least state your beliefs. Sneaking around Wikipedia making weasely changes to white nationalist pages is pathetic. Rockypedia (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They were NPOV, you can believe it or not, that is up to you but I've stated my side. The user page was different and very childish, I'll admit, but I don't see what effect the now deleted user page has had on the project. Zaostao (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually wasn't up to me, it was up to other editors who also saw you making pro-Nazi POV edits and reverted them, so most people don't believe you, I'd say. With good reason. The user page just served as further evidence of your ideological editing. Oops. Rockypedia (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An Arno Breker statue, a bible verse, 1,4,8,8, in edit summaries and a Richard Wagner userbox is worthy of an indef block? Again, what effect has any of this had on the project? And what am I supposed to do about this? The userpage has been deleted, I can't remove the material as it's already gone. This is just punitive. Zaostao (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would hope Wikipedia does have a built-in anti-nazi bias,, 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 &#124; talk 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Yeah, I'm convinced. I would also hope we have a built-in anti-nazi bias, I just question the usefullness of banning Zao when he's just going to start a new account and do the same thing again. But as Nomoskedasticity pointed out, he could also use a different account to get around any topic ban, so it's all moot, really. Even now he still steadfastly maintains that his edits weren't motivated by his neo-Nazi POV, which is horseshit, if you look at any of his edits to right-wing-related pages. So yeah, the ban should remain in place, as it's the best of a bunch of bad options. Rockypedia (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm unwatchlisting this page, as Zaostao is wasting everyone's time and everyone seems content to let him keep doing so. If someone actually needs me to explain the block further, I'm obligated to do so, so please ping me, but otherwise I'm washing my hands of this timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Several comments:
 * The false dichotomy between "no vile assholes" and "anyone can edit" only exists in 's mind. What I am asking for is evidence of disruption and/or damage to the encyclopedia. You know, the thing that blocking is supposed to prevent. The ANI discussion and subsequent block was purely based on the userpage, which has been deleted; none of Zaostao's edits in article space were mentioned. I have Jared Taylor on my watchlist and briefly edited it; Zaostao's edits there could be said to serve a POV, but they are not overly disruptive (barring a WP:3RR violation a few months ago for which they were blocked for 24 hours). There is plenty of discussion on the talkpage; some people agree with their points and many don't.
 * Pedophilia is not comparable to far-right ideology. Children are a special case; that argument does not apply to adult political discussions. Of course adults do sometimes act like children; that is evident here. Propose a policy WP:NAZIPUNKSFUCKOFF if you want to outlaw fascists.
 * If the thought of allowing a supposed fascist editor operate on political topics makes people queasy, a topic ban should be considered first before a block. Though no evidence of disruptive activity has been provided, admins on Wikipedia have lots of power so they can do whatever they want.
 * Zaostao should stop insulting people's intelligence: Flat Earth society is not comparable to fascism. The former is almost always used in a sarcastic way, the latter is only sometimes. I don't know and don't care whether Zaostao is a fascist, but they should keep their puerile actions to themselves, if only out of a sense of self-preservation. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure? Try this:
 * I too am tired of WP's tolerance of fascists. It's OK for them to out editors friends and family, "so long as they do it off-wiki". My last stalker here only stopped when he went to prison, not because WP did anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ??? "Out editors friends and family"? stalking? ...what? I don't think I've ever seen your username before. Zaostao (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see responses to Kingsindian's comments as I feel they sum this situation up very well, but 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)


 * The block prevents you from spewing idiocy and hate in user space, project space, and articles, prevents you from signalling other similar-minded editors to subtly support each other when editing, and prevents you from making edits like this (which I did not know about when I blocked you, but which confirms my judgement). It also prevent people from having to work alongside a known liar and racist on other articles and other topics, which a topic ban would not.  It also allows us to say "we do not knowingly support allowing racists to edit here", which is beneficial in attracting civilized people as potential editors, and which, again, a topic ban would not. (although God knows there are multiple other reasons civilized people might choose not to edit here)  Topic bans are for people who have problems editing in certain areas, but who are otherwise desirable to have as collaborators in writing an encyclopedia.  You are not a desirable collaborator, so there is no benefit to anyone in working out a way for you to continue to edit.


 * I've answered your question now, fulfilling WP:ADMINACCT, so do not ping me again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With what, do you explain the diff above?  Muffled   Pocketed  17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Explained above and below, but it's nice to see your very reasonable message on ANI. Political censorship and violence (smash the fash!!) is cool when our side does it, right? Zaostao (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Our' side: lol, nice try :) Muffled  Pocketed  12:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This one is also on theme. Lizzius (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm. To be completely fair, Caucasian is actually a fairly racist term when you look into it, and European American is both more correct and less racist. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you in theory, in practice this term has found it's way into my venacular thanks to the likes of David Duke and his organization, and some other neo-Nazi material I've had the displeasure of being exposed to. It's another clear example of a dog-whistle in my book, especially taken with Zaostao's other activity. Lizzius (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "European-American" is a dog whistle? Jesus Christ... As I say above, there are fascist userboxes, yet I'm being blocked for what? Pro-fascist "signalling" on my userpage? Zaostao (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What it is in your book is irrelevant. It is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * African Americans, European Americans... Zaostao (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already responded to that edit above—spur of the moment and I apologised for it, and I've made no such edits since. Again, what exactly is the reasoning for the block, what policy did I violate? It seems like this is simply a punitive block, judging by the "liar and racist" invective, rather than one to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. Also, please will you address some of 's comments, specifically the "'no vile assholes' and 'anyone can edit'" one? Zaostao (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 &#9821; &#9818; 05:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people support this block. It's unlikely that you'll be unblocked for at least 2 years, or possibly never. Also, I'm fully for not considering unblocking him for at least 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked (and the page protected from editing) as an administrator has identified your talk page edits (and edits from other people too) as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)