User talk:AP295

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

AP295 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

The block message states I was blocked for [1], [2]. Some editors agreed with me in both the first and second thread and considering how it started off, I don't think I was out of line, though the first editor to reply eventually ended up being relatively decent about it compared with a few others. People are still making comments in the second thread in my absence as of 12/16/23 so they must think it's salient issue, though it has been derailed somewhat. Theknightwho was abusive and obstructive and rolled back or debased my work on several pages, including at least two I made myself, one of which he locked me out of (along with another) after making his own edits. [3], [4] (the point was that they're not the same) [5], [6] (the first rollback he did make one semi-valid point about on his talk page, but both terms are misleading anyway per my comment [7] and this external source [8] and he reverted my attempts to further repair the entry. After I was blocked he bastardized it quite thoroughly) He only seemed to take much an interest after I had done several days work on them. Three of them he rolled back simultaneously and then stonewalled me. I started a Tea Room topic and asked for a mediator but was blocked shortly afterward. I was upset. An editor noted he was abusive toward me within the first BP thread, and a different editor was astonished by the undue grief I was getting in general. I should be unblocked to (hopefully) repair and/or finish some of the definitions I had been working on, and because I should not have been blocked to begin with. Anyone would think I'm presenting a lay down case for desysoping Theknightwho (and the blocking sysop -sche) rather than appealing an indefinite block, though I'm more than willing to forgive if they show some sense. An apology wouldn't hurt either.

I suppose I'll add a note or two while we're waiting. The entire idea of propaganda laundering is that the first, partial source is relying on an a second, reputedly impartial source to pass along the message. After Theknightwho's edits, it no longer communicates this very well. Consider his phrasing "by presenting it in the same manner as widely trusted news sources", as if to suggest "widely trusted news sources" can't or don't directly launder propaganda themselves. They can and do. It's clearly inferior to the definition I had written. It's a poor show that I should be locked from editing that entry (which I made) after undoing their edits and then blocked for 'disruptive editing' on such grounds. Replacing these contributions with debased simulacra, then reverting my reverts after having forced my hand, then locking the entries on grounds of vandalism, and then finally blocking me indefinitely on grounds of disruptive editing after I open a discussion asking for a mediator comprises one of the most shameful things I've seen on any Wikimedia project, and that says a lot. I'm prepared to explain any and all of my edits that have been rolled back or undone, which aren't terribly many. The appeal has been up for around a week. I know people are busy but the block was ridiculous in the first place.

A few more substantive comments: Since being blocked, I've fleshed out an essay on banking, which should make it clear exactly why the entry on fractional reserve banking is misleading [9]. That "trusted" news networks launder propaganda should be obvious, but here are a couple recent exposes that substantiate this claim [10],[11].

Since it has been almost two months and nobody has bothered to address this appeal, I'll make it even easier for the reviewer and provide a few diffs. It's not that all of his reverts are entirely indefensible (though some are), but I think most of my edits were reasonable and of value. Clearly the intent was to provoke an edit war. This all happened in a short period of time:

Theknightwho reverts minor adjustment to wording: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=conspiracy&diff=prev&oldid=76877797

Theknightwho bastardizing my definition of propaganda laundering https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=propaganda_laundering&diff=prev&oldid=77195998

and again https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=propaganda_laundering&diff=prev&oldid=77196775

and again https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=propaganda_laundering&diff=prev&oldid=77196847

and finally locking me out of the page I created: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=propaganda_laundering&diff=prev&oldid=77196852

Theknightwho reverting a very concise definition of FRB https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fractional_reserve_banking&diff=prev&oldid=77195893

Thenkightwho changing another of the entries I created in a manner contrary to the note in one of my edit summaries: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=media_stunt&diff=prev&oldid=77197696

Theknightwho reverts my changes to the entry wooden language: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=wooden_language&diff=prev&oldid=77131380

Theknightwho reverts my link to wooden language from the entry nominalization, even though nominalization is frequently used as part of wooden language: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nominalization&diff=prev&oldid=77131299

I could go on. He claimed in his block summary that I've made "No productive contributions". This is patently false.

Quo warranto? Pray tell, what is theknightwho's idea of a "productive contribution"? I admit these are cherry picked, but here are a few of his recent contributions to the english lexicon:

chest melons

suck diesel

Folgerscest (apparently a portmanteau of "Folgers coffee" and "incest". Why? Who the fuck knows.)

popcorn pissers

piss in the popcorn

chadmaxx

chadmaxxes

chadmaxxing

chadmaxxed

I rest my case.

AP295 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)