TorontonianOnlines

The edits that I have made most recently regarding prominent Bolsheviks were all well-sourced and took me a good deal of time, effort, and research, and were reverted without good cause. My goal was to convey the truth, even if it may be uncomfortable. In regard to IE, I made that point once in October of 2017 and dropped it given that the consensus seemed to be otherwise and it seemed like a contentious topic. In regard to "editing history appears to be dedicated to identifying various individuals as 'Jewish'" - I do not understand how that could possibly be construed as disruptive when each of those edits was backed up by sources and was factual in nature. Even in the case of the Hugo Ball mix-up, I was willing to work on it, discussed the problem in-depth in a polite and diplomatic manner, and subsequently worked on finding more reliable alternative sources as the talk page of that article and the user I was discussing with can attest.

Moreover, I had never randomly edited the pages of an assortment of bankers alleging that they were Jewish. There was one case of Olof Aschberg who was, in fact, Jewish (as his Wiki page clearly states). Finally, I have an extensive edit history going back over a decade across a wide range of topics. It seems to be that only when I tried to shed some light on an inconvenient truth, in an effort that was backed up by sources and history, that I was permanently banned. I could appreciate the case against me had I acted impolitely, thrown out ad hominems, reverted well-sourced edits, and made disruptive, false edits that were not steeped in historical fact. I did none of that and thus I firmly assert that I did nothing wrong here. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The fact that you consider your problematic edits as an attempt to "shed some light on an inconvenient truth" (What's "inconvenient" about someone's ethnicity unless you have some prejudice against it?) tells me all I need to know. Unblock request declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not my belief that it's 'inconvenient.' Rather, that seems to be the perspective of some other people here. Also, I fail to see how sourced, researched, and accurate edits can be 'problematic.' TorontonianOnlines (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

• 1. Not clear what I have been blocked for given that I am being punished for making sourced and accurate edits.
  2. I do not see what damage and/or disruption I may have caused given that I did not engage in any sort of vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring, violating the three-revert rule, spamming, etc. I have merely provided well-cited and accurate edits on a particular topic. They were truthful but appeared to not sit well with certain people. That does not mean that the edits themselves are wrong.
  3. I have only ever made well-sourced, researched, and accurate contributions and would continue to do so. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand why you've been blocked, and you're going to continue to make the same edits as before, there's no point in unblocking you. Since we're not making any progress here, I've revoked your ability to edit this page. You may make further unblock requests via WP:UTRS, but I suggest you come up with a better unblock request than "I'm going to continue to do the same thing that got me blocked". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply