User talk:Kuiet

January 2020

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. N.J.A. | talk 11:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Kkorrektor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

My old username included a disparaging term and did thus not conform to the username policy. I believe the new proposed username is wholly conformant (but if not, please correct my honest mistake).

I did not create the account to violate your username policy but to edit articles. My 2 edits were genuine attempts at data dissemination and their data appears correct (since it is the same as in the current article version) and I understand the blocking administrator found no fault with my edits (as his message includes no pertinent rule names or abbreviations), but if I am wrong, again, please correct my honest mistake.

Kike korrektor (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not come close to addressing your deeply offensive username. Yamla (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Kkorrektor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

To more clearly address your concern, allow me to interpret your stated reason in the context of the unblock-request structure.

"Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block)."

I give you my word not to again willfully and consentingly possess a violating username. Instead, going forward, I wish to continue accurately disseminating data but under a non-violating username and intend doing so should you grant my request. I understand your concern and even that you have no reason to trust the word of a newcommer, but I understand also that the project would risk to lose almost nothing should you trust that I intend to keep my newly chosen username. Since a request for a username change needs to be processed by a global renamer, there is little chance I could successfully attain a new violating username. My request thus rests on the premise that even if you are not convinced I will not WANT to repeat my username-violation blocking offense, you will nevertheless be convinced I will not DO violate it again.

But I hope there is no actual need for such convoluted reasoning and that this request has satisfactorily addressed your concern just by itself and managed to convey I have learned from my mistake and will strive to uphold community policies going forward.

Kike korrektor (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

renamed, per discussion, duplicate. -- Deep fried okra 12:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I want you to address why you picked this current username in the first place. I understand yhour claim that you won't pick an offensive username in the future (though I do note that your suggested username, Kkorektor, contains three 'k's). But you have to address why you picked such an offensive one in the first place. You have one more chance to do so. --Yamla (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: "Don't ask questions within your unblock request; that's reserved to explain why you will not be a problem to the project, not to request clarifications about policy. Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions" Allow me to ask for clarification. Having read the policies, I cannot find anything regarding adressing the reason a violation was made in the first place. Can you clarify how you wish to see the reason addressed that I may best assuage your concern? And as for the three 'k's, does that mean you find the suggestion improper? Say so and I shall readily comply and think of something else. Kike korrektor (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have to address why you picked your current offensive username. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: Again, please elaborate or point me to the relevant policy paragraph. Does 'address why' simply mean 'state your reason(s) why'? Since Yamla is only giving me one chance of addressal, I do not wish to botch it by giving what you would consider an incomplete address why. Kike korrektor (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Straight question. Why did you choose this user name? What significance does it hold for you? What were you trying to say? -- Deep fried okra 01:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kike korrektor (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Kuiet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

>Why did you choose this user name?

Because the notion of a Jew proudly carrying his hateful banner as he works to correct the various inaccuracies and subjectivities present on the internet appeals to me.

>What significance does it hold to you?

None, really, besides its romantic value and as an actualisation of my idea.

>What were you trying to say?

Acknowledging the fact the internet is a fort of ignoble sentiments and improper characterisations, the way to counter them shouldn't be to cower from them and censor them but rather to bring their views to light and correct them in the eyes of the whole world, so that all may see their errors and thus take away the potency of their existence. In this concrete example, that the Jews' tactic should be to embrace to work to correct the internet conception of a Kike.

That being said, I understand that is not the accepted tactic of combatting baseness, so as stated previously, I will no longer attempt it in this way.

Kike korrektor (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

per discussion. renamed-- Deep fried okra 13:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with this, and have no objection to this user being renamed and unblocked. I understand carrying the hateful banner proudly; but the term is sufficiently objectionable (it's actually the only anti-semitic epithet I've been called, when I was 12 or so, good gosh 50 years ago) that it will engender negative reactions from people who don't know why you're doing it. Wikipedia isn't really the right place for this sort of activism -- it verges on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this user being renamed and unblocked. I strongly believe they should choose a username with no nazi overtones. For that matter, a non-offensive username. I don't want to see ethnic slurs. I don't want to see references to the Ku Klux Klan. No dog-whistle politics. No pointy disruption. If this user is not capable or willing to pick an acceptable username, I will move to WP:CBAN them. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I attach no value to the username 'Kkorrektor' and I definitely wish to avoid antagonising you, thus in respect of your senior judgment, I ask to be immediately renamed to 'Kuiet' (if you do not find the name objectionable).

The matter being resolved, would it be improper of me to ask you to involve the community anyway? Not to scrutinize your judgment, nor to overrule your will, for I recognize the sensibleness of your ruling and intend to uphold it, unconditionally. I merely wish to acquaint myself with the general communal climate by observing how the others - relieved of any unwanted responsibility for my future username - would perceive the name 'Kkorrektor'.(Edit: in case I am not being clear, I mean for their insight to be purely academical, to have no bearing on my actual username, which would ideally already be irreversably resolved to 'Kuiet' before the community even gets involved).

I make this plea in good faith, but if it runs counter to established etiquette or any existing policies, please overlook my transgression, it was not meant as such.

Kike korrektor (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the username, Kuiet. I withdraw my objection to another administrator lifting your block. If you are unblocked, I have no objection to you raising the concern about your current-as-of-writing username and of some of your suggested replacements. I suggest WP:ANI may be a place for that discussion, but there may be better options. I would certainly be willing to participate in the discussion if you wish, or if you prefer I remain silent and let others discuss it with you, I'm certainly willing to abide by that request. A sincere thank you for picking a different username. --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Kuiet! You created a thread called Untrue but referenced at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Wikipedia talkpages are an appropriate outlet for Nazi propaganda? Blocked.

What makes you think Wikipedia talkpages are an appropriate outlet for Nazi propaganda, Kuiet — or, as you were originally known, Kike Korrektor? I have removed your long propaganda piece from Talk:Nazism and blocked you indefinitely as not being here to create an encyclopedia. See also WP:NONAZIS. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

So all this crap about "proudly wearing the hateful banner" was a lie. Thanks for making a fool of me. I'll remember. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 11:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not crap, it wasn't a lie and I still firmly believe every single bit I've said then. I'm sorry to hear you feel foolish. I don't think I had anything to do with that but I sincerely apologise if I had; I have absolutely nothing against you and such was never my intention. Can you explain why; do you also think I'm a nazi?Kuiet (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen if your question is "What makes you think Wikipedia talkpages are an appropriate outlet for Nazi propaganda?" all I can reply is "When did you finally decide to abandon argumentation and reason for loaded questions and rhetorical tools?"

Because in case you haven't realised: that's all your question is.

Obviously, I don't think they are an appropriate outlet for nazi propaganda.

Presuming you actually intend to provide reasons for your block, before appealing I should like you to elaborate on what exactly you think I have done.

Here's my view on things:

Not a single time have I edited any article to include anything untrue. If I've anticipated that others might disagree with what I wish to include I've made it a point to first thoroughly present my ideas on the talk page, then listen and engage in debate with other editors to make up my mind on what is sensible. When others disagreed, I have never selfishly pursued my own ideas. Cases in point:

So what makes you think I'm not here to help build an encyclopedia?

In the talk page, what you refer to as propaganda, I understood to be objective truths. If that is not the case, you could've just corrected me. If they are true, but you disagreed about including them in the article, you could've also just explained why. I've made my views on their importance clear and I've received no rebuttal. Obviously, if I perceived them as propaganda I never would've even brought them up. Obviously, if you revealed them as such, the point would have immediately become closed.

And why the did you also include NONAZIS with no elaboration; is that a halfassed attempt of accusing me of being a nazi? That's even worse than a loaded question, how am I supposed to argue against zero arguments? I went on the nazi-ideology-talkpage to provide reasons on why I think nazi ideology includes social policies. That makes me a nazi?? Then what does an encyclopedist look like?? I can overlook your loaded question but what the hell man, I can't take that lightly! You don't accuse someone of being a nazi and not say why! Edit: And please, excuse my french. I got heated. Kuiet (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath. I suggest you just appeal the block and try your eloquence on an uninvolved admin. After all, in February it worked (rather to my surprise) with several experienced admins who I have a lot of respect for. I'll just ping Deepfriedokra — I guess you forgot — in case he has an appetite for discussion with you. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I think I've said all I need to. Maybe someone not pissed off would like to revoke TPA. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: thank you kindly for your suggestion but I cannot appeal it before understanding your reasoning:

It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you before starting an unblock request.

Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block.

What are your reasons for thinking I'm not here to build an encyclopedia? Why should I also see NONAZIS?Kuiet (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your excuses for your original username were lies, and that your long adulatory discussion of Hitler's social polices at Talk:Nazism was added the page for the purpose of putting the Nazi party in a good light. I also believe your questions and comments re the block on this page are offered in bad faith. If you ask me any further questions instead of moving on to a formal unblock request, I'll remove your talkpage access. You would then still be able to request unblock, but not on this public page. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 8 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

As follows Kuiet (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After seeing the conversation with Deepfriedokra and Bishonen above, gotta agree with them - I'm not buying the "Jew carrying the hateful banner" thing, and I think you're playing us for fools. Declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2020 (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.

@Bishonen:I hope passions have sufficiently cooled by now that we can progress impassively, so here goes.

I believe your excuses for your original username were lies

I believe they weren't lies. So how can we resolve this? Do you wish to point out any part specifically that seems ingenuine to you?

your long adulatory discussion of Hitler's social polices.. ..was added the page for the purpose of putting the Nazi party in a good light.

Can you show me anything adulatory I've written, anything at all? If you click again on the link you've provided above, you will see it as purely composed of quotes from a book which catalogues things the Nazi party did. There is no 'that's why Nazis=good/ that's why Nazis=bad' subjective coloring. So how did you conclude I, personally, adulate Nazis?

I also believe your questions and comments re the block on this page are offered in bad faith.

They really aren't. I just got (and still am) confused why quoting a book about the Nazi Party on the talk page for the Nazi Party is a bannable offense.Kuiet (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: So what am I supposed to do when the main hurdle is you not believing what I said about my personal identity and character? Should I talk about myself some more? I'm genuinely at a loss here. Kuiet (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]