User talk:Budo
Budo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I see that there is an accusation that my behaviour is supposed to be in some way similar to that of the disruptive actions of User:Kaz. I am happy to submit to an identifiable Admin any evidence in private which can satisfy them I am a different person, although I will not disclose anything to the public. Also if necessary, would like the opportunity to discuss below exactly why someone thought that to be the case in the hopes of getting my block removed please. Naturally to me, the equation seems blatently unreasonable, but I am trying to assume good faith on behalf of the busy admins who have to make swift decisions with so many other things to do. I would like to start by recounting my perspective on the events please. I have a long history with Wikipedia and don't remember ever coming across User:Kaz until October 2nd 2012 when I noticed that he had made an an interesting edit on the Keraits page where I recognised the source. I myself had only recently (mid September) come accross the Keraits while following my interest in Nestorian Christianity. Naturally I became very interested in trying to follow the heated discussions on the Crimean Karaites page. When User:Kaz was blocked, I was curious about why all of his work was also removed arbitrarily without discussion of its value. We can dislike the man's character, but does that also give us reason to automatically also dismiss all of his work? In fact some of what he did was simply to request citations and oppose original research. So I joined in the discussion trying to get to the bottom of things, and I think I found the reason in my last question on the Crimean Karaites talk page when it strangely brought about an end to any further discussion. Thus I decided to purchase an electronic copy of the Karaite Folk Encyclopedia. Although I do not read Russian well, I managed to get some help and was extremely interested to learn over the next month that all the facts that User:Kaz had made reference to were nothing but the mainstream opinion of the Karaite Folk themselves. They do not consider themselves to be any relation to the karaite Jews, they believe they descend from the Huns and that the Huns themselves were of ancient Israelite ancestry. And they really do believe that their religion is a from the Kereits being a form of Torah observance which includes belief in Jesus Christ and in Mahomed. A very strange and yet fascinating concoction of ideas indeed! Well I decided to post the article under the correct name (Karaite Folk) which they make clear is a distinct from the Karaite Jews who they consider to be apostates from Ananism and who in return consider them to be Mamzers. Clearly a lot of hate between the two distinct yet coincidentally named groups. It have been blocked because I learned that the contributions of an admitedly disruptive user (who even his major critic acknowledge knew his stuff) were indeed accurate. You can see in that last link that the same critic User:Неполканов (whose Russian Username name clearly identifies his anti-Polkanov bias and POV) accurately but also not without a slur on my intelligence commented that I can not be user:Kaz for various reasons. I suggest that the real issue here is that I have unwittingly presented information from the Karaite Folk view of themselves which is vehemently opposed by the Karaite Jewish point of view on them and therefore I have also become the object of some scorn. I do not believe the attack is personal against me at all really, but the is actually directed from supporters of the Karaite Jewish point of view but towards the Karaite Folk's view of themselves which I posted. Clearly there is a ot of hatred from someone towards this minority as I noticed that two other Users, User:Danage and User:Muthmar were also accused of being sockpuppets for User:Kaz just for agreeing with the Karaite Folk's own view of themselves. Thus I would also like to suggest humbly that the Admins might consider taking a cautious approach towards further accusations in case a witch-hunt is allowed to start against anyone who recognizes the importance of the facts presented by User:Kaz and is automatically dismissed along with their contributions as "sockpuppets". I think that it is important to note that the point at which I was accused is I think when I attempted to remove unsourced information and misrepresented sources from the Crimean Karaites page and replace it with genuine use of source material here. You can see that curiously those misused sources and unreferenced comments have been re-inserted since my block. I do hope that there is some way I can prove my identity and get back to protecting wiki articles from original research and fabricated sources. In the meantime, perhaps another admin might take on this task concerning the unsourced original research and POV pushing editors at the Crimean Karaites page until I am able to satisfy whatever requirements are made of me concerning the removal of the block against me. Sincerely yours Budo (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I ignored this unblock request for almost a week because it was far too long. I have finally gone through the contents, and find that it clearly fails the Guide to Appealing Blocks in many ways. First, it accuses admins (and thus the blocking admin) of being on a "witch hunt" - such unblock requests will almost inevitably be immediately declined. Second, it's chock full of content discussion - unblocks are to refer to behaviour of the blocked editor, and not content - indeed, you're trying to convince us you're not a sock by saying a sock's edits were valid. There are more, however, these two alone fail WP:GAB - future requests really should be concise, and to the point - you were, after all, given 6 days to shorten it as requested (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Before I read this in full, (any chance you could shorten this, by the way? Long appeals tend not to get read) why were you using an anonymous proxy? Editors are not allowed to use such services to edit, and doing so greatly increases the suspicion that you've been abusing accounts. Hersfold (t/za/c) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why there is an anonymous proxy, perhaps it is because these are government computers or maybe it has something to do with which computer terminal I use here? I am sorry I am not a technician and I have not really been able to find out much about such things since you asked me. Concerning shortening it, I think basically I am just asking how can I prove to you that I am not Kaz so that my block can be removed and stop people deleting my edits. I think that I was identified with Kaz due to a certain user having a very strong POV on the topic to the point that they perhaps not without some paranoia (certainly in my case at least) see anyone who presents facts which contradict their own bias as being one person? I am willing to identify myself legally to any legally identified admin. Budo (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Without in any way commenting on the validity of the block, I point out that your "long history" in wikipedia certainly dates from November 2003, but contains only 432 edits. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Although I am not very prolific, I do enjoy wiki a lot. I am aware of the limitations in my knowledge on most topics and stage-shy especially having made some foolish mistakes while learning how to use this software. But I think I am not a *completely* worthless member of the wiki community? :o) Budo (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
@Bwilkins, thank you for skimming through the first draft of my request. I did shorten the request as can be read in response to User:Hersfold, was I meant to delete what I had originally written before shortening it? I realised that there were things in the request which are irrelevant and the main point is, just because I do use Karaite Folk Encyclopedia reliable source it does not mean I am User:Kaz, I can, and am extremely willing, to prove my identity. However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I never accused any admin of any thing. Also Kind regards. Budo (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)