User talk:Fulcrum0

December 2022

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Also refrain from non-constructive edits as you did to Aegean Sea, which have been automatically reverted and resulted to an increase of the article's protection level. Wikipedia works by consensus and the information has to reflect on reliable sources, not on editorial views. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all I am glad to hear that we are on the same page. Wikipedia should be stating facts in a neutral manner and avoid the use of any subjective adjectives. If you go ahead and check both pages, you will see that the "Blue Homeland Doctorine" is claimed to be "irredentist" and "expansionist". This is a heavily biased statement favoring the Greek views and subjective conclusions. The sources provided for the following terms don't imply that the doctorine is "irredentist" and "expansionist", they don't even mention these words. They rather give general information regarding the Turkish perspective and legal claims. Therefore, using the mentioned adjectives is totaly the Greek personal analysis since there is no legal binding. So, to be able to use these adjectives you should mention that it is how the Greek state and media views the aforementioned doctorine.

Furthermore, if you check the sources of the Aegean dispute, you will observe that the Greek state and media sources are mentioned dominantly. If you are honest regarding your thoughts on the neutrality of the page, you should really reconsider the issue and check the sources properly. The general tone of the page is highly favoring the Greek views and forms a perception as if the Greek claims are de jure. For example, the article never mentions the so called "Seville Map" which represents the Greek claims in the region and the fact that the United States clearly mentions that these claims have no binding [1]. Fulcrum0 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fulcrum0: Sorry but it is just your editorial POV versus reliable sources and Wikipedia reflects only on reliable sources, not on what editors may think or believe. Editorial views not supported by any third party reliable sources, constitute original research and have no place in Wikipedia. The project reflects on RS and you may ask for information to be adjusted or removed only by challenging it, which is done by providing strong and indisputable reliable sources which contradict the cited RS. Anything other than that, is simply a case of "I don't like it" and I strongly recommend that you avoid going down this path of edit-warring to change the content in the articles to suit your one-sided Turkish POV at the expense of any consensus which reflects the majority's views as expressed by the international community. This kind of behavior is regarded as disruptive and may result in your editing privileges being removed or your account being blocked by the admins. Please familiarize yourself with WP:FIVEPILLARS to understand how things work here. Once you are familiarized with the guidelines, feel free to open a proper talk page discussion regarding any issues you may think that there are about these or other articles, and provide WP:RS to support your claims. Only then we may take you seriously. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry mate but you are distorting the truth. The sources that you mention to use those adjectives DO NOT contain any of those words, thus they are your own comments. As I mentioned, if you insist on adding them you should mention that it is how the Greek state and media views this policy. As you are threatening me with a ban for protecting the neutral view policy I think we should contact and admin to solve the issue because you don’t reply my points but keep repeating your opinion. * {{vandal|SilentResident}} The user doesn’t answer the points I make to protect the neutral view policy and threatens a new user with a ban. ~~~~ Fulcrum0 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, you may be blocked from editing. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, it is so funny that you are not answering my points and instead blaming me for the rules that you are not respecting. I will report you for distorting the truth and threatening a new user that acts to protect the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia WP:RS. Fulcrum0 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2023 (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).

Fulcrum0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have been blocked by Bbb23 as a result of the ongoing discussion here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents?markasread=268762489&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-SilentResident-20221231233900-Cullen328-20221231233400 The admin banned me for using multiple accounts but as a new user, I first made an edit on the Aegean Dispute page and later on discovered that my IP address is shared. Later on, to avoid that I created this account to protect my IP address and the neutral view policy of Wikipedia. I explained the issue in the admin board above I would be glad if you could read all the points I made there. I tried to find a suitable way to solve the issue but in return, I received ban threats and bullying. The admin didn't even bother to address the discussion but simply chose to ban me for an unrelated issue which is quite discouraging for a new user who wants to contribute to the community. If I receive this attitude from the first ever discussion I am involved in Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to keep contributing to the community. I would be glad if you could reconsider my ban and consider the issue that was in discussion in the admins board. I would be glad if you could check the page above to read the entire discussion. I tried to offer a solution several times but neither the user nor the admin did not care. So, I have simply been defending WP:RS against Wikipedia:USTHEM. I have been dealing with users that do not want to address my points but rather prefer to making this a personal issue by coming up with baseless accusations. Through this several days, I really went from being a new user who doesn't even know how to edit to an relatively experienced user I would say :). I would be glad if you could both unlift my ban and address the discussion above in the admin board since the admin that banned me didn't even bother. Thank you very much for spending your time. Fulcrum0 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As I understand it, the sock issue is now resolved. However, I don't see a pathway to you being unblocked without a topic ban from Turkey-Greece territorial issues- and that's only if you are able to adopt a more collaborative attitude. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2023 (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.

It looks like you were blocked for being a sock puppet of TurkicEtymology (talk · contribs). You were edit warring in similar articles with a similar point of view. However, you geolocate to a different country. Is there any connection between you and TurkicEtymology? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don’t have any connection nor familiarity. I mean, how does that even happen, are people who defend a similar approach always banned like this, shouldn’t there be any IP checking or whatsoever? I suspect these people are some kind of a gang who get everybody who doesn’t share their views banned. Also, as I stated above, I don’t propose any baseless claim. I only say that if the user wants to share definitions made by several anti-Turkish journalists, then their names should be mentioned. However in the Aegean Dispute article, SilentResident insists on keeping them as if they are a fact and reports me saying I am involved in some kind of organization to spread Turkish POV. If you go ahead and check the talk page of Aegean Dispute you will see that this isn’t the first time she does this. I think this issue needs further examining because it is really discouraging against new users like me. I basically got banned because I told comments shouldn’t be published as facts and some user reported me for basically defending a similar idea that some person has also proposed before. Thank you for sparing your time and I would be glad if a detailed examination was conducted regarding this bullying I am receiving. User:NinjaRobotPirate

Based on the technical results, I've removed the tag from your userpage. However, I am unwilling to block you as, in my view, you should be blocked independent of whether you are a sock based on your POV/nationalist edits and your battleground mentality. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to spread your POV; nor is it a place for you to attack other editors simply because they disagree with you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I don't think you have a place in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you copying exactly the same words I said while discussing with you and Silent Resident in the admin incident board? I am mentioning basic facts while you prefer to keep accusing me without addressing any of my claims and you are talking as if I am the one who puts a biased journalists claims as if they are facts. As you can read in Wikipedia:RS, journalists ideas cannot be put as facts, you should either quote or mention that it is a POV. You can't claim that I am a nationalist without submitting any proof nor a certain sentence I used that implies nationalism. You are abusing your admin powers according to your pleasure to surpress people you don't agree with, and making this personal. I am sure if moderators investigate this issue they wilk clearly see what is going on despite your effort of accusing. User:NinjaRobotPirate

NOTE: The admin Bbb23 just admitted that his ban has nothing to do with me using personal accounts but that he simply thinks I am a "nationalist". Fulcrum0 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is unfortunate that the editor Fulcrum0 has refused to show any - even slight - signs of regret or change in tone and attitude that would be an encouraging sign that the editor has improved somehow, and thus, can, with some patience and guidance, become a productive member of our Wiki community. By reading again and again the comments by Fulcrum0, I am getting the feeling that the editor will simply not take any changes in improving themselves, disregarding any of the advice we have tried to give them, both on this Talk Page and the ANI. Therefore, I will have to agree with User:Bbb23's opinion, in that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and Fulcrum0 has no place in it per WP:NOTHERE.

A note: If Fulcrum0 turns out to not be a WP:SOCKPUPPET, this would only heighten my concerns that they may be a WP:MEATPUPPET instead, with whatever this may spell for Wikipedia's stability. (see the discussion here at the AN) A Meat scenario here makes that AN discussion (in the link) even more relevant to our case, considering that there, they too were discussing about how multiple Turkish POV-pushing accounts were causing a great deal of disruption across Wikipedia these months, as result of a massive off-wiki campaign. Whether these cases here and there are related or not, is something I can't be certain for, however the timing of the events, plus the fact that (like how User:NinjaRobotPirate has pointed out): Fulcrum0 and TurkicEtimology have shown similar editing patterns: (similar articles, similar views) cannot be taken lightly. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, you can keep going with your baseless accusations. You simply deny to answer my claim regarding the article and keep on accusing me. I am sure any person without bias will see that you are trying to make things personal instead of discussing the topic in a civilized manner, which is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Sorry, but I will not waste my time answering your accusations. If you have any proof, don't be shy and present it. Fulcrum0 (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2023 (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).

Fulcrum0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is clear that I am not a sockpuppet but my ban is not lifted, without a solid reason. Please read the full discussion above and see that I am only making two points, nothing else. 1. Journalists' ideas can't be put as facts according to WP:RS as is the case with the "irredentist and expansionist" adjectives in Aegen Dispute. 2. The user called Silent Resident doesn't put any argument addressing my first point but keeps accusing me of being a sockpuppet, some apart of an organized attack and now nationalist. This is actually why Wikipedia isn't respected as a trustable source in the world. When users like me who see something is not right try to interfere according to Wikipedia's own rules, users with a background here who have friends to support them can easily surpress you with accusations as if this is a battleground, rather than answering your claims in a scientific and respectful manner. Sorry, but you can't expect respect from someone you keep accusing. Anyways, unlift my ban or not, what is happenning to me right now is against the rules of Wikipedia. Fulcrum0 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While the initial reason for your block was resolved, the process uncovered additional reasons to maintain that ban. To wit: your approach to doing work here is one of making articles and talk pages in a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This attitude would need to be addressed in order to consider lifting the ban. UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2023 (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.

Someone else will review this, but we don't expect people to blindly trust Wikipedia- as Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we make no guarantees about content here. Readers should evaluate the sources provided to judge them for themselves- they should not trust us. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor claims that I haven't addressed their points but the editor didn't initiate a proper discussion at the article's talk page that would allow for such an opportunity to arise; this is the appropriate place for arguing over content, a place where more third party editors are more likely to notice and participate if they wish. Not an user's talk page nor the ANI's report, which was for their behavioral issues. If the editor wishes to be unblocked, they will have to reflect on their behavioral mistakes in order for the admin to be convinced into unblocking them, not by focusing on other editors as the Block Appeal Guidelines instruct them to do per WP:NOTTHEM. It is highly recommended that they take the necessary time and familiarize with these guidelines, as well as the other guidelines which clearly they haven't taken the time to read yet -as evidenced from the tone and arguments in their unblock request.

Considering the editor's repeated failure -both in the 1st and the 2nd unblock requests- in acknowledging that it was their nationalist agenda and battleground attitude that led them to becoming blocked, then, any unblocks -if considered- should be accompanied with the necessary topic ban from the Turkey-Greece territorial disputes. -- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I start a conversation there if I am banned due to a baseless accusation you made to avoid discussing the topic with me in a scientific and neutral way? I am trying to start a conversation since the beginning of our discussion in the admin's incident board but you haven't addressed my scientific claims there, and you aren't addressing it here either; you prefer to accuse me so that we never talk about the real issue which is only a wording issue. Moreover, you are trying to get me blocked from the dispute pages with baseless accusations so that I can never argue about anything there either. Hillarious. Fulcrum0 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not victimize yourself, this isn't convincing. You weren't blocked immediately, but only after you WP:EDITWARRED across multiple articles, ignoring any warnings on your User Talk Page, maintaining your unecyclopedic WP:TRUTH approach by accusing us for "distorting the truth" and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that "I will report you for distorting the truth and threatening a new user that acts to protect the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia." And to not mention, your WP:BADFAITH accusations "you are trying to get me blocked from the dispute pages with baseless accusations" plus insisting on your problematic perception of WP:NEUTRAL (even though ActivelyDisinterested already explained to you at [2] that it is problematic), makes it impossible for others to cooperate with you. I am afraid I have spend too much time on your User Talk Page for nothing. Good luck with your unblock request! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally you have decided to stop accusing and discuss, thank you! WP:RS clearly states the following: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Insisting on keeping this adjectives as if they are facts is a clear Wikipedia:USTHEM. The solution I am offering: Keep the adjectives but change the wording of the sentence so that it is clear that it is a point of view, not a fact. Fulcrum0 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I was banned due to your baseless "sockpuppet" and "part of an organized attack" claim, not related to the point I am making in the Aegean Dispute page. Fulcrum0 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2023 (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).

Fulcrum0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see no reason to continue the dispute, I may have made mistakes such as not using the talk page of the articles in the first place, but I as a new user then, I didn't know that until I got banned. I still believe that I have been accused baselessly but I don't think it matters anymore, continuing the discussion only wastes our time and energy and nobody needs that. Since the first accusation stated that I am sockpuppet and it is now clear that I am not, I would be glad if you could lift by ban, and give me the opportunity to discuss topics in related talk pages to contribute to the community. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Closing as stale only, you may make another request. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2023 (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.