I am actually a junior academic researcher and searched many references to the genocide in Myanmar and the direct involvement of Cambridge Analytica. Someguy1221 is deliberately provoking conflict by reading references that have mostly been directly quoted in my article. The administrator is retaliating my writing with the notion there is no connection to what I have wrote and what I have cited. There are currently administrators claiming ownership of the "Cambridge Analytica" page. Hiding behind deletions is not honorable, nor are false accusations. There should not be ownership of pages on Wikipedia. We are building a modern encyclopedia with historic events and who must be held accountable will be.

To spell out more explicitly why SomeGuy1221 indefinitely blocked you: in this edit, you cited this otherwise reliable source for the claim that CA was promoting hate speech with the usage of social engineering and methods of psychological warfare via social media platform Facebook in the Myanmar. The CNN piece you cite for that doesn't mention Myanmar at all. You cited this other source (with the wrong title) for the claim that These violations in Myanmar lead to racial hatred and fueled a genocide within the country. The only mention of Myanmar in that source (titled "US Congressman Brad Sherman says Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency ‘may do more to endanger America’ than 9/11") is "The announcement has been met with broad skepticism from lawmakers, with many asking why Facebook should be trusted to build an experimental new financial system given its track record of scandals – from its role in the spread of hate speech that fueled genocide in Myanmar to Cambridge Analytica’s misappropriation of 87 million users’ data." Now, anyone literate in English should know that that sentence does not actually blame CA for genocide in Myanmar.
That last point seems to be the point of confusion for you. You are confusing two distinct events:
*CA stealing data from Facebook users,
-- and --
*Facebook taking too long to do anything about some Myanmar military officials spreading hate speech.
You've not provided anything suggesting that those two things are related, other than "Facebook was involved." The rest of your sources fall under that same confusion of those two events -- an Association fallacy. That you refused to back down on your confusion of those two things raises concerns either about your competency or your honesty (which we don't have a policy page for because, really, we don't need one to block dishonest users).
Also, the sheer hypocrisy in referring to the article as just yours while telling everyone else to back off because there's not supposed to be ownership suggests that maybe you're just a troll who needs their talk page access revoked. If you do not show the slightest sign that you realize you have screwed up here, I'm going to go with that assumption. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not damaged anything on Wikipedia, I have used direct quotes from news articles to update the cambridge analytica page. I have understood that I have been blocked because of using the undo function on users trying to reverse my edits. I will now start talking to the editors and changing only after resolution. I will try to then make a useful contribution on Maynmar on the cambridge analytica page.

Procedural close. You're no longer blocked. Please see this advice on how to deal with edit wars if you find yourself in another dispute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the first sources references to the ethnic cleansing in Maynmar. I would like to request editing on this subject after regaining my editing rights that were unfairly removed from my account and not from the other accounts that participated in the edit warring. I request their accounts to lose editing function as well.

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. Yamla (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to edit the Cambridge Analytica wikipedia according to news on CNN, BBC, The New Yorker and Business Insider articles but there are political lobbyists trying to delete my edits on the genocide in Myanmar

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. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]