User talk:Ya hemos pasao

Please stop adding redundant and bias information onto articles. You can not change articles to fit your agenda. I notice you have a very clear history of this sort of disruptive behaviour. If you do not stop, I will have to take this higher. Thank you. --Wordbearer88 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wuthering Heights

Re your recent deletion: why not edit this to better reflect the ambiguity and the better sources that you have? Rwood128 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I will, when I have time. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Coon

I've raised them at WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Carleton S. Coon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 12:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome

Hi Ya hemos pasao. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Ya hemos pasao", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears that you might be using a disruptive or offensive username. "Ya hemos pasao" is a known falangist song and slogan, referencing the words used by Francisco Franco following the nationalist victory in the Siege of Madrid. As this appears to be what your username is referencing, then it may well violate all four of the criteria of :

The username may be offensive to contributors, particularly those from Spain or descendants of veterans of the Spanish Civil War.
The username may be taken as a personal attack, as it includes an implication of violence.
The username may be intended to provoke an emotional reaction, as it is referencing a very emotive political slogan.
The username may display an intent towards disruptive editing, as it indicates a purpose to treat editing as a battleground and having little or no interest in working collaboratively, due to its connection to a partisan war-time slogan.

This is particularly concerning due to your recent edit warring in the Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial article, which is a subject directly connected to the slogan in the displayed username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello, Ya hemos pasao. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Grnrchst (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sky News Australia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be interested in pushing a political agenda and not collaborating with others. A secondary concern is your username, which is a right-wing slogan and potentially disruptive- though I will leave a decision on that to any reviewing administrator(who should view WP:RFCN for a discussion). 331dot (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have been subjected to an indefinite block by the above user after a discussion that lasted only a few hours, which I did not have the opportunity to participate in. This is clearly an arbitrary and unfair decision, and an egregious abuse of power.

The supposed reasons for this block weren't really well-explained, but I will attempt to address them thoroughly.

As to the "secondary issue" of my username, as one of the blockers acknowledged, "it's an extremely niche area of history and will be known to very few outside the peninsular below a certain age. We have, after all, users with names including various iterations of International, Red Flag and even Horst-wessel in their usernames" User:331dot specifically mentioned it being a right-wing slogan. Needless to say, if my username were the left-wing slogan No Pasaran, (which Ya Hemos Passo was formulated in response too), I would not be targeted in this way. Nonetheless, I was not aware my username could be perceived to violate Wikipedia policies when I created it and would be willing to change it--so long as this is applied fairly and consistently to other users with political/potentially offensive usernames.

As far as me being "interested in pushing a political agenda", that could be applied conservatively to 90%+ of Wikipedia users. There are users on Wikipedia who proclaim openly that on their user pages that they are here with an agenda, often an extremist one! I have seen such users too many times to count, including outright and acknowledged communists, where literally every single edit they make is for the purpose of pushing their POV, whereas I edit articles in a wide range of topics, only some of which which are political, or related to this supposed malicious agenda. (This is because I only edit incidentally, being very busy in real-life.) I can state categorically I do not have some systematic POV-pushing agenda (unlike numerous other users I have encountered); I simply don't have the time. My being blocked for an alleged agenda is thus hypocritical and discriminatory in the extreme. If I have been blocked for alleged "agenda-editing" while other users have carte blanche, what this in fact indicates is that other users have an agenda hostile to me.

Merely having certain views is not a reason to be blocked from Wikipedia. Users are not and have never been required to have a Neutral POV. User:ZLEA listed some edits he for some reason took issue with, but has not explained what is supposed to be wrong with any of them. I accept that I may have made some inadvertent mistakes while learning the ropes, but in general my edits are completely justifiable and correct, to the best of my knowledge in accord with Wikipedia's policies, improve the articles they are made to, and I stand by them. I always do my best to give good reasons for my edits and I did so in all those cases, which User:ZLEA must not have read when he cherrypicked edits I suppose he thought looked "incriminating" (of what, exactly, he didn't say).

The charge of edit-warring I completely reject. On the contrary, I have been the victim of edit-warring, in cases, such as the Spanish Civil War memorial article, where the user BulgeUwU (who, incidentally, also demonstrates a clear political agenda in their pattern of edits) repeatedly reverted my edits (and made personal attacks), ignoring my requests to take it to talk instead of continuously reverting without discussion. I am not aware of having violated the three revert rule, which I have always done my best to stick to, even when facing editors such as the above who are unwilling to compromise and have no interest in (or ability to carry on) a reasonable discussion. In the specific case of Sky News Australia, I hardly think it counts as edit-warring ("repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree") to make extensive edits to improve an article, have them all undone in a blanket rollback without good reason, and then to restore them, once, asking for an explanation. It is ludicrous (or worse, disingenuous) to claim that it is. By this logic every editor would have to accept every deletion of their edits at the first instance. I have always tried to maintain a collaborative attitude to other editors, in the face of some extremely high-handed reverts, where many well-established editors feel justified in undoing the hard work of newer editors, simply because they have less power, without giving any substantive reason or attempting to engage in any sort of discussion or collaborative process. And when I have (politely) engaged in Talk discussions, often I have been stonewalled by users who simply talked over/past me and been completely inflexible about my reasonable and extensively-explained changes to articles. I have also been in the past the victim of users of the likes of Grnchrst (who I note also displays a clear, almost exclusive, political agenda in their edits, in regards to Anarchism) using spurious warnings to bully and attempt to intimidate me which is why I ignored his communication about my username. Frankly, it's exhausting and demoralising, and yes, does make me justifiably irritated at times.

User:ZLEA mentioned "an apparent pattern in the user’s edits". He declined to say what this pattern was or how my edits evidenced it. In any event, since when has a "pattern" been reason to remove an editor from Wikipedia? I reiterate, all my edits have been constructive and in good faith, and if none of them is disruptive individually, they cannot cumulatively be used to justify my banning. That would be the grossest imaginable injustice.

User:331dot cited WP:NOTHERE as the supposed grounds for my blocking. I note first "This is an explanatory supplement to the content and behavioral policy and guideline pages. This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Now, to me that indicates it should not be used as a pretext to subject users to penalties, let alone what is in practice the harshest penalty. However, I am far from being an experienced Wikipedian and may be wrong. Even if that is the case, he has not demonstrated how I fulfil the criteria listed on that page. My 'behaviour as a whole' shows that I am clearly a productive editor who is here to build an encyclopaedia, even if certain editors may not like what I do.

"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."

My presence on Wikipedia is none of those things, and this block is clearly unjustifiable. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been subjected to an indefinite block by the above user after a discussion that lasted only a few hours, which I did not have the opportunity to participate in. This is clearly an arbitrary and unfair decision, and an egregious abuse of power.

The supposed reasons for this block weren't really well-explained, but I will attempt to address them thoroughly.

As to the "secondary issue" of my username, as one of the blockers acknowledged, "it's an extremely niche area of history and will be known to very few outside the peninsular below a certain age. We have, after all, users with names including various iterations of International, Red Flag and even Horst-wessel in their usernames" User:331dot specifically mentioned it being a right-wing slogan. Needless to say, if my username were the left-wing slogan No Pasaran, (which Ya Hemos Passo was formulated in response too), I would not be targeted in this way. Nonetheless, I was not aware my username could be perceived to violate Wikipedia policies when I created it and would be willing to change it--so long as this is applied fairly and consistently to other users with political/potentially offensive usernames.

As far as me being "interested in pushing a political agenda", that could be applied conservatively to 90%+ of Wikipedia users. There are users on Wikipedia who proclaim openly that on their user pages that they are here with an agenda, often an extremist one! I have seen such users too many times to count,  including outright and acknowledged communists, where literally every single edit they make is for the purpose of pushing their POV, whereas I edit articles in a wide range of topics, only some of which which are political, or related to this supposed malicious agenda. (This is because I only edit incidentally, being very busy in real-life.) I can state categorically I do not have some systematic POV-pushing agenda (unlike numerous other users I have encountered); I simply don't have the time. My being blocked for an alleged agenda is thus hypocritical and discriminatory in the extreme. If I have been blocked for alleged "agenda-editing" while other users have carte blanche, what this in fact indicates is that other users have an agenda hostile to me.

Merely having certain views is not a reason to be blocked from Wikipedia. Users are not and have never been required to have a Neutral POV. User:ZLEA listed some edits he for some reason took issue with, but has not explained what is supposed to be wrong with any of them. I accept that I may have made some inadvertent mistakes while learning the ropes, but in general my edits are completely justifiable and correct, to the best of my knowledge in accord with Wikipedia's policies, improve the articles they are made to, and I stand by them. I always do my best to give good reasons for my edits and I did so in all those cases, which User:ZLEA must not have read when he cherrypicked edits I suppose he thought looked "incriminating" (of what, exactly, he didn't say).

The charge of edit-warring I completely reject. On the contrary, I have been the victim of edit-warring, in cases, such as the Spanish Civil War memorial article, where the user BulgeUwU (who, incidentally, also demonstrates a clear political agenda in their pattern of edits) repeatedly reverted my edits (and made personal attacks), ignoring my requests to take it to talk instead of continuously reverting without discussion. I am not aware of having violated the three revert rule, which I have always done my best to stick to, even when facing editors such as the above who are unwilling to compromise and have no interest in (or ability to carry on) a reasonable discussion.
In the specific case of Sky News Australia, I hardly think it counts as edit-warring ("repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree") to make extensive edits to improve an article, have them all undone in a blanket rollback without good reason, and then to restore them, '''once''', asking for an explanation. It is ludicrous (or worse, disingenuous) to claim that it is. By this logic every editor would have to accept every deletion of their edits at the first instance.
I have always tried to maintain a collaborative attitude to other editors, in the face of some extremely high-handed reverts, where many well-established editors feel justified in undoing the hard work of newer editors, simply because they have less power, without giving any substantive reason or attempting to engage in any sort of discussion or collaborative process. And when I have (politely) engaged in Talk discussions, often I have been stonewalled by users who simply talked over/past me and been completely inflexible about my reasonable and extensively-explained changes to articles. 
I have also been in the past the victim of users of the likes of Grnchrst (who I note also displays a clear, almost exclusive, political agenda in their edits, in regards to Anarchism) using spurious warnings to bully and attempt to intimidate me which is why I ignored his communication about my username.
Frankly, it's exhausting and demoralising, and yes, does make me justifiably irritated at times.

User:ZLEA mentioned "an apparent pattern in the user’s edits". He declined to say what this pattern was or how my edits evidenced it. In any event, since when has a "pattern" been reason to remove an editor from Wikipedia? I reiterate, all my edits have been constructive and in good faith, and if none of them is disruptive individually, they cannot cumulatively be used to justify my banning. That would be the grossest imaginable injustice.

User:331dot cited WP:NOTHERE as the supposed grounds for my blocking.
I note first "This is an explanatory supplement to the content and behavioral policy and guideline pages.
This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. '''This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines''', as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
Now, to me that indicates it should not be used as a pretext to subject users to penalties, let alone what is in practice the harshest penalty. However, I am far from being an experienced Wikipedian and may be wrong.
Even if that is the case, he has not demonstrated how I fulfil the criteria listed on that page. My 'behaviour as a whole' shows that I am clearly a productive editor who is here to build an encyclopaedia, even if certain editors may not like what I do.

"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."
My presence on Wikipedia is none of those things, and this block is clearly unjustifiable. [[User:Ya hemos pasao|Ya hemos pasao]] ([[User talk:Ya hemos pasao#top|talk]]) 06:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been subjected to an indefinite block by the above user after a discussion that lasted only a few hours, which I did not have the opportunity to participate in. This is clearly an arbitrary and unfair decision, and an egregious abuse of power.

The supposed reasons for this block weren't really well-explained, but I will attempt to address them thoroughly.

As to the "secondary issue" of my username, as one of the blockers acknowledged, "it's an extremely niche area of history and will be known to very few outside the peninsular below a certain age. We have, after all, users with names including various iterations of International, Red Flag and even Horst-wessel in their usernames" User:331dot specifically mentioned it being a right-wing slogan. Needless to say, if my username were the left-wing slogan No Pasaran, (which Ya Hemos Passo was formulated in response too), I would not be targeted in this way. Nonetheless, I was not aware my username could be perceived to violate Wikipedia policies when I created it and would be willing to change it--so long as this is applied fairly and consistently to other users with political/potentially offensive usernames.

As far as me being "interested in pushing a political agenda", that could be applied conservatively to 90%+ of Wikipedia users. There are users on Wikipedia who proclaim openly that on their user pages that they are here with an agenda, often an extremist one! I have seen such users too many times to count,  including outright and acknowledged communists, where literally every single edit they make is for the purpose of pushing their POV, whereas I edit articles in a wide range of topics, only some of which which are political, or related to this supposed malicious agenda. (This is because I only edit incidentally, being very busy in real-life.) I can state categorically I do not have some systematic POV-pushing agenda (unlike numerous other users I have encountered); I simply don't have the time. My being blocked for an alleged agenda is thus hypocritical and discriminatory in the extreme. If I have been blocked for alleged "agenda-editing" while other users have carte blanche, what this in fact indicates is that other users have an agenda hostile to me.

Merely having certain views is not a reason to be blocked from Wikipedia. Users are not and have never been required to have a Neutral POV. User:ZLEA listed some edits he for some reason took issue with, but has not explained what is supposed to be wrong with any of them. I accept that I may have made some inadvertent mistakes while learning the ropes, but in general my edits are completely justifiable and correct, to the best of my knowledge in accord with Wikipedia's policies, improve the articles they are made to, and I stand by them. I always do my best to give good reasons for my edits and I did so in all those cases, which User:ZLEA must not have read when he cherrypicked edits I suppose he thought looked "incriminating" (of what, exactly, he didn't say).

The charge of edit-warring I completely reject. On the contrary, I have been the victim of edit-warring, in cases, such as the Spanish Civil War memorial article, where the user BulgeUwU (who, incidentally, also demonstrates a clear political agenda in their pattern of edits) repeatedly reverted my edits (and made personal attacks), ignoring my requests to take it to talk instead of continuously reverting without discussion. I am not aware of having violated the three revert rule, which I have always done my best to stick to, even when facing editors such as the above who are unwilling to compromise and have no interest in (or ability to carry on) a reasonable discussion.
In the specific case of Sky News Australia, I hardly think it counts as edit-warring ("repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree") to make extensive edits to improve an article, have them all undone in a blanket rollback without good reason, and then to restore them, '''once''', asking for an explanation. It is ludicrous (or worse, disingenuous) to claim that it is. By this logic every editor would have to accept every deletion of their edits at the first instance.
I have always tried to maintain a collaborative attitude to other editors, in the face of some extremely high-handed reverts, where many well-established editors feel justified in undoing the hard work of newer editors, simply because they have less power, without giving any substantive reason or attempting to engage in any sort of discussion or collaborative process. And when I have (politely) engaged in Talk discussions, often I have been stonewalled by users who simply talked over/past me and been completely inflexible about my reasonable and extensively-explained changes to articles. 
I have also been in the past the victim of users of the likes of Grnchrst (who I note also displays a clear, almost exclusive, political agenda in their edits, in regards to Anarchism) using spurious warnings to bully and attempt to intimidate me which is why I ignored his communication about my username.
Frankly, it's exhausting and demoralising, and yes, does make me justifiably irritated at times.

User:ZLEA mentioned "an apparent pattern in the user’s edits". He declined to say what this pattern was or how my edits evidenced it. In any event, since when has a "pattern" been reason to remove an editor from Wikipedia? I reiterate, all my edits have been constructive and in good faith, and if none of them is disruptive individually, they cannot cumulatively be used to justify my banning. That would be the grossest imaginable injustice.

User:331dot cited WP:NOTHERE as the supposed grounds for my blocking.
I note first "This is an explanatory supplement to the content and behavioral policy and guideline pages.
This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. '''This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines''', as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
Now, to me that indicates it should not be used as a pretext to subject users to penalties, let alone what is in practice the harshest penalty. However, I am far from being an experienced Wikipedian and may be wrong.
Even if that is the case, he has not demonstrated how I fulfil the criteria listed on that page. My 'behaviour as a whole' shows that I am clearly a productive editor who is here to build an encyclopaedia, even if certain editors may not like what I do.

"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."
My presence on Wikipedia is none of those things, and this block is clearly unjustifiable. [[User:Ya hemos pasao|Ya hemos pasao]] ([[User talk:Ya hemos pasao#top|talk]]) 06:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been subjected to an indefinite block by the above user after a discussion that lasted only a few hours, which I did not have the opportunity to participate in. This is clearly an arbitrary and unfair decision, and an egregious abuse of power.

The supposed reasons for this block weren't really well-explained, but I will attempt to address them thoroughly.

As to the "secondary issue" of my username, as one of the blockers acknowledged, "it's an extremely niche area of history and will be known to very few outside the peninsular below a certain age. We have, after all, users with names including various iterations of International, Red Flag and even Horst-wessel in their usernames" User:331dot specifically mentioned it being a right-wing slogan. Needless to say, if my username were the left-wing slogan No Pasaran, (which Ya Hemos Passo was formulated in response too), I would not be targeted in this way. Nonetheless, I was not aware my username could be perceived to violate Wikipedia policies when I created it and would be willing to change it--so long as this is applied fairly and consistently to other users with political/potentially offensive usernames.

As far as me being "interested in pushing a political agenda", that could be applied conservatively to 90%+ of Wikipedia users. There are users on Wikipedia who proclaim openly that on their user pages that they are here with an agenda, often an extremist one! I have seen such users too many times to count,  including outright and acknowledged communists, where literally every single edit they make is for the purpose of pushing their POV, whereas I edit articles in a wide range of topics, only some of which which are political, or related to this supposed malicious agenda. (This is because I only edit incidentally, being very busy in real-life.) I can state categorically I do not have some systematic POV-pushing agenda (unlike numerous other users I have encountered); I simply don't have the time. My being blocked for an alleged agenda is thus hypocritical and discriminatory in the extreme. If I have been blocked for alleged "agenda-editing" while other users have carte blanche, what this in fact indicates is that other users have an agenda hostile to me.

Merely having certain views is not a reason to be blocked from Wikipedia. Users are not and have never been required to have a Neutral POV. User:ZLEA listed some edits he for some reason took issue with, but has not explained what is supposed to be wrong with any of them. I accept that I may have made some inadvertent mistakes while learning the ropes, but in general my edits are completely justifiable and correct, to the best of my knowledge in accord with Wikipedia's policies, improve the articles they are made to, and I stand by them. I always do my best to give good reasons for my edits and I did so in all those cases, which User:ZLEA must not have read when he cherrypicked edits I suppose he thought looked "incriminating" (of what, exactly, he didn't say).

The charge of edit-warring I completely reject. On the contrary, I have been the victim of edit-warring, in cases, such as the Spanish Civil War memorial article, where the user BulgeUwU (who, incidentally, also demonstrates a clear political agenda in their pattern of edits) repeatedly reverted my edits (and made personal attacks), ignoring my requests to take it to talk instead of continuously reverting without discussion. I am not aware of having violated the three revert rule, which I have always done my best to stick to, even when facing editors such as the above who are unwilling to compromise and have no interest in (or ability to carry on) a reasonable discussion.
In the specific case of Sky News Australia, I hardly think it counts as edit-warring ("repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree") to make extensive edits to improve an article, have them all undone in a blanket rollback without good reason, and then to restore them, '''once''', asking for an explanation. It is ludicrous (or worse, disingenuous) to claim that it is. By this logic every editor would have to accept every deletion of their edits at the first instance.
I have always tried to maintain a collaborative attitude to other editors, in the face of some extremely high-handed reverts, where many well-established editors feel justified in undoing the hard work of newer editors, simply because they have less power, without giving any substantive reason or attempting to engage in any sort of discussion or collaborative process. And when I have (politely) engaged in Talk discussions, often I have been stonewalled by users who simply talked over/past me and been completely inflexible about my reasonable and extensively-explained changes to articles. 
I have also been in the past the victim of users of the likes of Grnchrst (who I note also displays a clear, almost exclusive, political agenda in their edits, in regards to Anarchism) using spurious warnings to bully and attempt to intimidate me which is why I ignored his communication about my username.
Frankly, it's exhausting and demoralising, and yes, does make me justifiably irritated at times.

User:ZLEA mentioned "an apparent pattern in the user’s edits". He declined to say what this pattern was or how my edits evidenced it. In any event, since when has a "pattern" been reason to remove an editor from Wikipedia? I reiterate, all my edits have been constructive and in good faith, and if none of them is disruptive individually, they cannot cumulatively be used to justify my banning. That would be the grossest imaginable injustice.

User:331dot cited WP:NOTHERE as the supposed grounds for my blocking.
I note first "This is an explanatory supplement to the content and behavioral policy and guideline pages.
This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. '''This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines''', as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
Now, to me that indicates it should not be used as a pretext to subject users to penalties, let alone what is in practice the harshest penalty. However, I am far from being an experienced Wikipedian and may be wrong.
Even if that is the case, he has not demonstrated how I fulfil the criteria listed on that page. My 'behaviour as a whole' shows that I am clearly a productive editor who is here to build an encyclopaedia, even if certain editors may not like what I do.

"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."
My presence on Wikipedia is none of those things, and this block is clearly unjustifiable. [[User:Ya hemos pasao|Ya hemos pasao]] ([[User talk:Ya hemos pasao#top|talk]]) 06:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}