User talk:Voskresno

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 08:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whose sock are you, please?

You are obviously not a new editor, per your edit to Talk:Nick Fuentes. What's your main account, please? Bishonen | tålk 11:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

What are you referring to? How am I 'obviously not a new editor'? Voskresno (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question honestly. The question is not harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? How am I 'obviously not a new editor'? On what grounds are you suggesting that my answer is dishonest? Please reframe your concern in a way that is not an accusation. Voskresno (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page, Cullen328. I had no idea that's all I had to say to get rid of you. If you post on my page again, I will tell my uncle who works at Microsoft to ban you from the internet. Voskresno (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your post at Talk:Nick Fuentes 3 months ago showed familiarity with Wikipedia which a new editor would not have. If I'm mistaken, please just say so. Bishonen | tålk 02:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Notice required by policy

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I am most certainly here to build an encyclopedia. The 'drama' described is merely me calling out offensive behavior by users who happen to be administrators abusing their power. I made a comment several months ago and only today saw that someone had commented on my user page after that comment was made -- "Whose sock are you, please? You are obviously not a new editor, per your edit to Talk:Nick Fuentes. What's your main account, please?" This comment was on only my second change ever on this website (apart from my user page, which I'd played around with to get the hang of formatting -- which unfortunately resulted in me being accused of not being a new editor). To me, this unfounded accusation based on only a gut feeling was offensive behavior and so I posted a notice on the user's talk page. Another user (Cullen328) jumped in to pressure me to answer the baseless accusation. Again, I was confused why two users were on my page pressuring me to provide an answer to an accusatory question that made no sense. In retrospect, I should have not responded at all and ignored it. However, when I did respond, I was then demonized for holding my ground and not caving to an insulting question. In particular, though I now recognize that a single incident is not harassment (and thus I was premature to report harassment), Cullen328's repeated uncivil, accusatory, insulting comments most definitely now constitute harassment.

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

This perfectly describes their behavior. Almost every single comment had disrespectful content ('repeated offensive behavior'), particularly towards the end, eg

instead of answering a simple, straightforward question, you have responded with TLDR mischaracterizations and evasive blather. Productive Wikipedia editors are forthright and succinct.

they reminded me a number of times that I am speaking with administrators, in spite of it having absolutely no relevance to the conversation, in order to pressure me into answering a leading question based on a false premise ('make the target feel threatened or intimidated') ganged up on by now four separate administrators ('undermine, frighten') who are invalidating my experience. In particular, Bishonen's initial comment is a blatant violation of this opinion piece on rudeness, and worse than a baseless accusation presented as indisputable fact, the accusation was, again, only my second contribution on the platform outside of my user page ('Why being rude is inappropriate: ... 1. It keeps away newcomers.'). Though that comment was discouraging enough to log in and see, what's worse has been Cullen328's responses, which have left an extremely sour taste in my mouth. This is blatantly unacceptable behavior, and yet I am the one banned for causing drama, simply because I had the gall to accuse Cullen, who has been harassing me this entire time, of harassing me.

[1] Whose sock are you, please? You are obviously not a new editor, per your edit to Talk:Nick Fuentes. What's your main account, please? Bishonen (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC).

[2] Please answer the question honestly. The question is not harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

[3] You have been asked a simple question. Please answer it. Cullen328 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

[4] Instead, you have chosen to be uncooperative and argue with several administrators. Not a good way to "win friends and influence people".Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

[5] instead of answering a simple, straightforward question, you have responded with TLDR mischaracterizations and evasive blather. Productive Wikipedia editors are forthright and succinct. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

[6] Be aware, Bishonen, that this discussion on my talk page falls into TLDR territory. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

[7] Cullen's not harassing you either. Please stop making accusations like that. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I have responded as politely as I possibly can to each of these comments. I realize in retrospect that I should have just not responded. But I disagree that I am creating drama when I have been nothing but respectful in the face of Cullen's blatant and growing disrespect and contempt towards me. It seems clear that from the moment I refused to answer an insulting, insinuatory question, Cullen has been actively harassing me and trying to push me off the platform, first by his behavior (which is the least friendly possible introduction I could have had to this platform), second by helping get me banned. Please look through my contributions. They are few, but all well-intentioned. On United States Army, I reverted vandalism adding a fraudulent figure for the number of active duty personnel. On Arranged marriage I updated a link ('a suitable man who could afford to marry') to go to Bride price rather than Dowry, as a dowry is paid to the husband rather than by the husband. On Talk:Nick Fuentes, though I was expressing a controversial perspective, I took a lot of time to respond to it carefully, spent time researching formatting, and most importantly, I did not reply to the comment that followed mine, which disagreed with what I said, because I wasn't interested in getting tangled up in drama and I didn't expect it to help. If I'd known this was this whole thing was going to turn into (not the ban, the repeated insults and disrespectful behavior), I never would have responded to any of this stuff to begin with. And now I have a sick feeling related to not only editing Wikipedia, but also reading it. So, I guess Cullen's harassment succeeded -- while I know it would be possible to circumvent this unjust ban and continue with occasional, minor thoughtful contributions to this website, I have no interest in doing that if this is how newcomers are treated by 'administrators' here, assuming there isn't anyone just in the admin pool who will support reversing this ban. Four against one, one of them clearly out for blood, one who started the whole thing with an accusatory comment, and two admins who apparently will defend other admins regardless of the facts. It is absolutely beyond me why it takes 4 admins to pressure one person into A) answering a question, B) shutting up about the harassment he's experiencing.

Voskresno (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I stopped reading this WP:WALLOFTEXT at "me calling out offensive behavior by users who happen to be administrators abusing their power". Continuing the drama here and insulting those who you are asking to unblock you are both never good strategies. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 8 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

You were right, I was wrong. I should have realized that sooner. Voskresno (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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. MER-C 12:21, 12 November 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.

We don't want you to tell us what we want to hear, either. Just discuss the reason for the block and tell what will be different going forward. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]