User talk:Vinidapoo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 2025
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Vinidapoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
My blocking is unjustified. My edits to Odessa pogroms were not an attempt to justify anti-Semitism. They were to add historical context as to why many Russians/Greeks held anti-Semitic views. The sources discuss in-depth how the economic success of Jews in the city led to frustration among the general population, especially during economic downturns like in 1905. Similarly, they discuss how the initial spark of the pogrom was the shooting of a Russian religious protest, with 100 non-Jews dying in the pogrom. I was not attempting to justify anti-Semitism, I was adding important material from the sources which AndreJustAndre, who themselves has been banned from editing such topics , unjustifiably removed.
I ask that you do a readthrough of the discussion between AndreJustAndre and I on Talk:Odessa pogroms and take a look at his edits. There is a consistent pattern or removing sourced information to push a certain view, which is what he was banned for originally.
Decline reason:
I see no pathway forward here. Maybe someone else will, but not me. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2025 (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.
- (comment in non-admin capacity) I recommend this be declined. It is not accurate at all to say that AJA was "banned from editing such topics", since the discussion and dispute was not related to the topic AJA was banned from. Either way, this sort of WP:NOTTHEM seriously weakens the appeal. I agree that V's edits and comments distorted history and overtly tried to justify antisemitism, and I don't think it's possible for them to rejoin the community productively without a lengthy period of contemplation, a recognition of wrongdoing, and some clear plans for how to act differently moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I would like to say that I am not justifying anti-Semitism. I was attempting to provide context as to the pretext for why this pogrom occurred.
- Other articles about pogroms do the same thing. A good example would be Kristallnacht. Although it rightly points out that the violence was due to anti-Semitism, they still include the fact that the pretext for the pogrom was the murder of a German diplomat by a Polish Jew. This event has an entire section of the article devoted to it, and it is mentioned in the lede. This does not excuse the violence, but gives the reader an understanding for why the violence occured.
- I pointed out AJA because they were the one making disruptive edits, which I was attempting to fix. Their ban was related to articles regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. They seem to have moved to making disruptive edits about Jewish history, particularly when it relates to Russian/Soviet history. As I speak both Russian and English and have an interest in Russian/Soviet history, I edit English articles to include facts from the Russian ones if they are missing key information. AJA would consistently and disruptively revert these edits, which is why I mentioned him. Vinidapoo (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
|
Vinidapoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
As of today, the edits that I suggested to Odessa pogroms have been included by AJA. They have added information about the economic and political factors that led to anti-Semitism, and included deaths and injuries to non-Jews as a result of the violence. This information is in the lede.
I am very happy to see these changes and applaud AJA for their work.
This leads me to believe that my ban was unjustified. If my edit were disruptive, why are others allowed to make the same edits? This, along with the fact that no explanation was given as to how the edits went against Wikipedia policy makes it seems like I was banned due to an unsubstantiated aspersion. Vinidapoo (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
From the discussion below, I think you are wasting your time - you will not be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2025 (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.
- This is of course, not true. I did not restore Vinidapoo's distortive edits, nor was the crux of the dispute whether economic and political factors should be mentioned at all, but what weight or emphasis they should be given along with whether the antisemitism played a central role. In Vinidapoo's edits for example he removed antisemitism from the central role and replaced it with economic, or on a subsequent edit tried to give them even billing, rather than adequately explaining that antisemitism played a central role and was exacerbated by political and economic factors. His edits add a lot more weight and justification to the violence to non-Jews and economic factors even on subsequent versions which are not in the article and should not be, and the sources do not support the idea that Jews had a disproportional influence or that Jews were engaged in violence that wasn't oriented around self-defense. He also distorted and reversed what the sources said in many cases such as changing being unable to have political power to "difficulty," or claiming that a discriminatory policy increased rather than deprived them of representation. This is straightforwardly deceptive and misrepresenting the sources. Doubling down on his distortive changes he accused me of disruptive editing. His unblock request shows no remorse, understanding, or any resolve to improve, and simply doubles down on accusations that the block was unjustified, and should be declined. Andre🚐 20:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is true. They included both the changes that I requested in my final post to the article's talk page (the one where I said I was no longer interested in editing the article due to our back and forth). They consistently and disruptively reverted valid and sourced edits about the above information , . Up until my ban, they were completely opposed to including this information and would revert any edits I made to include it, but now seem to have realized that it is valid and should be included in the article. They were also the first to accuse me of disruptive editing, despite your turbulent history with disruptive, pro-Israel editing themself .
Vinidapoo (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)}
- To respond to their new edits to this page about my assertion that Jews only had "difficulty" and were not completely barred from poltics, one must only look at the current article to see it is true. A small number (not proportionate to their representation) held political office early on, and this proportion increased after some reforms (although representation still was not proportionate to population). I answered these changes on the the article's talk page already.
Vinidapoo (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)}
- The block should be maintained. A significant problem, as I see it, is the affected editor's request reason above for lifting the block, as well as the editor's further commentary, acts as though the block was imposed for edits on just one article. In fact, any number of edits on other articles can be shown to be problematic. Here, for example, is another one: this edit by the editor to Lwów pogrom (1914) adds the words
some accounts suggesting that up to half of the casualties were Jewish
and citing a source for this proposition. A review of the source actually reveals that it says "About forty Jews died" (out of 47 or 49 total deaths), which is a significant majority. I'm not sure how one can read this source and feel it is appropriate to edit the article and cite this reference to saysome accounts suggesting that up to half of the casualties were Jewish
. Simply put, this is disruptive editing, as much because it distorts the reference, not just because it minimizes antisemitism. I very much believe in assuming good faith, but there are limits. Coining (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)