User talk:Vinidapoo

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Andre🚐 16:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 01:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing in the form of Holocaust revisionism and overtly trying to justify antisemitism, e.g. Special:Diff/1303437503 & Special:Diff/1303611287.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 1 August 2025 (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).

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

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 [1], 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)[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.

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]