|
[1] Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety talk 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
While i agree to having participated in an edit war as reported, the reasons given for the block are for something completely different. There is "Logging out to edit war". This is simply false, i have never, not once, logged out to edit wikipedia. I have, at times when i didn't have much time, made an edit without logging in first but that is a far cry from "logging out to edit war" which assumes malicious intent. I have also long stopped making edits before logging in first, that was at a time when i wasn't particularly involved with WP yet, the moment i started to get really involved i made sure to always log into my account first. Besides, the reported edit war that i admitted to was from my account only - i've never even edited that page before logging in first. I'm not sure where that "logging out to edit war" is supposed to come from. There is also "adding original research" which was not mentioned in the report and hence it is quite unclear what exactly that original research would be. There was a discussion on the talk page about OR, but the first issue about the german report was simply made up - every single statement was reliably attributed to the sources, and not synthesized or something. The second issue may or may not have been OR (the source stated "Wait. Did we say this was funny?" which i had put in as "implying they think it was funny"), but that seems pretty minor. Given that my intention here, as stated in my comments on the report, is to have the "D" part of "BRD" take place it seems that an editing block is out of place, given that it means that i cannot edit the talk page too. If you're concerned that i'll change the article, don't be, i'm fine with not changing any article for 31 hours - the problem is that the block means that i cannot engage in discussion on the talk page.
Accept reason:
Hello, B01010100. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mariupol standoff.The discussion is about the topic Mariupol standoff. Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Please can you find a third-party source for your statement of Denis Krivosheev's opinion, which you added to at least four articles.[4] For the purpose of the other statements attributed to the Amnesty International article, the Amnesty International article is a good source. However, as Krivosheev works for Amnesty International, the relevance/significance of his statement really ought to have a different (i.e. third-party) source.
Nobody (except possibly Krivosheev) believes that the Red Army should have allowed food convoys to German 6th Army when they were surrounded at Stalingrad - it was good that the Germans were starving to death, it made them surrender. That civilians in Stalingrad also went hungry was unfortunate; starving the civilians was not the purpose of surrounding German 6th Army - even under modern treaties it was not war crime.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Holodomor genocide question, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
The referenced content you deleted does, in fact, state that Belgium recognises Holodomor as 'genocide'. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Talk:Holodomor genocide question. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Reminder: The discretionary sanctions described above are still in effect. --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~))
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN talk to me 14:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
The material you're complaining about involves the Ukrainian conflict which falls under the Eastern Europe topic area. Your assertion that other editors are saying Russia has time travel technology is obviously nonsensical and continues the disruption you have been engaging for years. Blocked indefinitely, first year under discretionary sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 14:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20956 was submitted on Mar 21, 2018 15:12:57. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no valid basis for the block. The admin in question appeals to discretionary sanctions regarding Eastern Europe, yet I have not even edited any articles under those restrictions[4] for years. This is nothing but an obvious attempt to subvert the dispute resolution process, given that all I did was open, first, an ANI case[5] and then an ArbCom case[6] presenting evidence debunking the conspiracy theory in question.
Decline reason:
This is no longer an AE block. Like all the other administrators commenting at AE, however, I see no reason to unblock you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2018 (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.
Thank you.B01010100 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Santamoly since apparently you're the previous one to attempt to talk some sense into the conspiracist crowd and to be blocked for it, I thought you might be interested in the following[6][7][8]. The plot thickens with Russians traveling back in time to "manipulate sources" published long before the crash.
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.
Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.
In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The claim by Acroterion[9] is simply false. Immediately after the crash of MH-17 the flight specifications of the Su-25 were widely talked about in the media, and an Su-25 pilot tried to correct the flight ceiling on WP by reverting the earlier (in 2011) change to a lowered ceiling[10]. He was almost immediately set upon and shut down by what could probably best be described as a rabid gang of Russophobic racists. They made a whole fuss about it, and it even got into the papers, which then constitute the sources used by Acroterion to support his claims.
The Popular Science source[11] has this to say about the incident: "On Monday morning, someone from an IP address in Moscow edited the Su-25's Russian Wikipedia page to increase the maximum height the plane can reach by about 10,000 feet." It confirms that the Su-25 pilot was editing from Moscow, but in no way supports Acroterion's claims about "manipulation of Wikipedia."
The Economist source[12] has this to say about the incident: "The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Wikipedia entry to say that the jets could briefly do so." Which also confirms that people edited from Russia, but also in no way supports the claims about "manipulation of Wikipedia."
Is it not fairly racist and nationalist to suppress/block/ban editors for no other crime than being of a certain nationality, and claiming with no evidentiary basis that they're all involved in some bizarre conspiracy?
The further claim that "The accounts and IPs that have been complaining that they're not being taken seriously have carefully avoided even acknowledging this issue" is now shown false. Perhaps what was meant was "We can keep claiming that the editors in question avoid acknowledging this issue if the editors are conveniently blocked, nudge nudge wink wink."
From NeilN's statement[13]
"B01010100 knows very well that they're editing on a Ukrainian-related topic"
"without using article talk pages"
"Feel free to discuss this at WP:ANI. You are risking an arbitration enforcement action by pursuing a course of advocacy for content that has been shown by outside sources to have been deliberately falsified to manipulate WIkipedia."
"may fall just outside the Eastern Europe topic area."
From TonyBalliononi's statement[15]
"I'm not entirely comfortable blocking someone using discretionary sanctions for making an ArbCom case request, even if it was a ridiculous one."
"the animosity towards Acroterion in particular is concerning"
From subsequent edit[17]
"I think the comments about Acroterion, especially the parts highlighted by NeilN"
In response to [18]:
How did the Russians manage to "deliberately falsify" the historical record from before the crash, if not through time travel? No amount of handwaving makes the question go away. Blocking anyone daring to ask such questions (or indeed discuss the conspiracy theory in question at all) doesn't really make it go away either, it just hides it.
As to me not being a benefit to "this project": I completely agree. Personally I care about things like empirical evidence, physical reality and basic Causality. I'm not really into the crazy conspiracy stuff, so I wouldn't be much benefit to "this project" indeed. Something I realized back in 2015 which, as you correctly noticed, prompted me to stop editing. So how about this, you can keep me blocked but at least answer the question about that conspiracy theory[19]: How did the Russians manage to "deliberately falsify" the historical record from before the crash?
I just find it really amazing how this entire conspiracy can be determined from nothing more than two newspaper articles which prove nothing more than that at least some of Wikipedia's editors can be suspected of being Russian (as determined by IP location). I'm really interested in how the theory proposes the retroactive change to the historical record has occurred.
From Courcelles[20]: "simply too much bad behaviour"
From Acroterion[23]: "It appears that they took it upon themselves to go to ANI, then to arbitration".
From Acroterion[25]: " disruptive editing is fine too, they've wasted plenty of time with all this running from one noticeboard to another."
From Alex Shih[26]: "If the user is willing to articulate their content dispute in a rational manner without being extremely pointy".
Anyway, the consensus seems to go that it should be "NOTANYWHERE". Well, of course they hide it behind "NOTHERE" but if you apply "NOTHERE" to every part of wikipedia then of course it just becomes "NOTANYWHERE". How unexpected, the conspiracy theory is Absolute Truth and anyone caught disputing it is to be blocked. If they dispute it on the article's talk page? Well, that's a NOTHERE and an obvious block. If they dispute it in some dispute resolution noticeboard? Well, that's obviously a "NOTHERE" as well and deserving of a block.B01010100 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Converted to a regular indefinite block per appeal. --NeilN talk to me 14:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20971 was submitted on Mar 22, 2018 14:30:20. This review is now closed.