User talk:Smefs - Knowledge

2098:

what the offending user did constituted, in my view, the denial or whitewashing of some horrendous acts on the part of an African militia group. I do not believe this makes the user a "psychotic denialist of war crimes," what I believe is, and I feel that I have come to this conclusion based on a straight-faced reading of what was said and on this user's continued harassment and hounding of me over the period of weeks, is that the user attempted to rewrite some of my contributions in order to gloss over massacres and genocides in an attempt to get one over on me. Again, I feel that if you look at the evidence you will find that what I am saying is basically true. The user followed my page around for weeks, undoing and rewriting many of my edits, so in no way am I assuming bad faith to say that this is true.

1693:

this conflict, but Fred Zepelin has been going through my page, constantly, in clear violation of Knowledge conduct, in what I can only assume to be an extended campaign just to fuck with me. This is a clear case of a bad faith editor. In this case, he is not interested in clarifying truth and spreading knowledge -- he has a personal vendetta against me for some strange reason and is seeking some weird sort of revenge by harassing and hounding my page. I've said so on your talk page (which you have removed, repeatedly) but I'll say it again: I want you to leave me alone. This is a clear pattern of obsessive behavior which (before you removed it all) is shown through your Talk page. It isn't healthy and is honestly incredibly frustrating to deal with.

1670:

a single section about a specific propaganda booklet was because when I read the section, I noticed the only source was the booklet itself (ie a primary source). I looked for a reliable secondary source, found one, and updated the section with that source and some verbiage summarizing that source. I made zero judgements about any atrocities, genocides, or anything related, by any groups. Just added some text about a single booklet that was distributed by one of the sides in that conflict. Like I said, probably irrelevant, because the problem with Smefs is deeper than a single edit war, but I did want to set that straight: the whitewashing accusation is completely unfounded at best, and just an outright lie at worst.

1185:

removed reliable, documented links to the articles of said massacres. This is clear violation of Knowledge's Is it a personal insult to call this what it is? I honestly do not understand, but I'm a relatively new user so I may be incorrect. Either way, I've been using Knowledge for years before I made an account and am interested in seeing the project grow in new ways while retaining a high quality standard. I sincerely apologize if any of my actions caused offense. They were merely trying to identify in neutral language the actions I see as taking place. However, I will take more care to ensure that my language is not inflammatory in the future. Thank you and have a good day.

2290:

edits were poor for one reason or another, and I’m assuming good faith. You don’t seem to understand what a reliable source is, or your definition is different than the consensus of the community and you are offended that people don’t agree with you. I deal with rude but “respectable” users and yeah, it sucks, but more important than any relatively minor conduct issue (like this one) is having a fundamental issue with Knowledge practices and guidelines. You appear to be having such an issue on the matter of reliable sources specifically and not accepting that maybe your version of an article isn’t the correct one more generally/

280:, I think it is fairly reasonable to call the guy a "fucking nutter" is a bit of an understatement and certainly does not warrant being called a "personal attack" or "harassment." I am not an experienced user and I don't pretend to be. With all due respect I have better things to do than edit war on Knowledge all day. I find it pretty disturbing, though, that a more experienced user who obviously is not acting in good faith and is in fact editing according to his own political beliefs and not what souces state, and has been actively harassing inexperienced users for years, including 2029:

but again that's only an assumption. The other appeal you cite, which was only procedurally declined for being open for too long, not declined by an actual administrator, is an old one. I think it could help me out a lot if you could tell me what I did. Otherwise, the best I can do is assume it's for assuming bad faith in an editor which, while I think the definition of "assuming" here is up to some interpretation, I agree that I shouldn't have done. This is very, very frustrating and I would greatly appreciate some clarity. Thanks for your time.

2627:, attempted to get the article taken down through conflict of interest dispute which was continually denied, reported me to a "No Nazis" group (lol) in an attempt to get a hoarde of meatpuppets on his side, etc. This is, I will remind you, only days after I had a conflict with him. This is, by the way, not an isolated incident. The user has a long history of hounding users he disagrees with, which was why I initially insulted him by calling him psychotic. He has wiped much of this from his talk page, but here are a few examples: 424: 122: 2049:. It might be an idea to read at least the start of that page and digest what it says. The May block is still relevant because I don't see any acknowledgement of the problem. It is up to the editor concerned to read the obvious text at WP:GAB and work out for themselves what happened. Text like "I apologize for any harm my actions may have caused" is not convincing. You might think about how Knowledge would work if people behaved in the way that has occurred in this incident. 23: 978: 2497: 1857: 1099: 182: 486: 2721: 1006: 2643:? After all of this I certainly have license to claim that this user is whitewashing a massacre simply to get one over on me. For his own good, I think he should be the one edit blocked -- respectfully, I don't believe he has a healthy relationship with this site and the fact that I am the one edit blocked for pointing this out has led me to lose a great amount of faith in the WP project. 2211:? After all of this I certainly have license to claim that this user is whitewashing a massacre simply to get one over on me. For his own good, I think he should be the one edit blocked -- respectfully, I don't believe he has a healthy relationship with this site and the fact that I am the one edit blocked for pointing this out has led me to lose a great amount of faith in the WP project. 912: 836: 2639:. I'll note that the user responds with concerning hostility whenever his pattern of behavior is brought up. Now, after all this, I ask you, how am I supposed to "assume good faith" with this editor? When this editor has followed my page around for weeks, why should I assume that he is acting in good faith in reverting yet ANOTHER of my edits, this time 2207:. I'll note that the user responds with concerning hostility whenever his pattern of behavior is brought up. Now, after all this, I ask you, how am I supposed to "assume good faith" with this editor? When this editor has followed my page around for weeks, why should I assume that he is acting in good faith in reverting yet ANOTHER of my edits, this time 1622:

Fred Zepelin is a bad faith, harassing user who is, in fact, engaging in what could be amounted, depending on your perspective, to the whitewashing of genuine massacres in which many people were killed, solely as revenge in an edit war? I think that if you were to look at the evidence objectively, you'd find the answer to all of these questions is "no."

2068:

personal attacks. Having known of this rule, I would have refrained from insinuating another user was psychotic for his behavior towards me. This case is different. I am still in the dark over which exact rule I broke. I apologize for my tone but it really feels like I'm in Kafka's The Trial or something here. Thanks.

2307:

My definition of a good source is different from a single obsessive and unstable editor with a clear agenda and who manipulates others and creates sockpuppet accounts to destroy those who disagree with him. You are not going to gaslight me into thinking this is only a problem with me -- this user has

2289:

I looked at your diffs. Fred Zeppelin's actions are in the right even if his flippant, combative tone needs some work. They definitely don’t seem to be “hounding” you; it’s common to look at a user’s contributions if they’ve made one bad edit to see if it’s a reoccurring thing with them. Most of your

2260:

And this is why I would be shocked to see you ever unblocked without a drastic change of approach. I tried to advise you nearly two months ago what you would need to change to have a chance at being unblocked, but it appears you have decided your preference is to be as instransigent as possible. Best

2028:

The "attack" you cite is from a previous block. It is entirely unrelated to the current block I am attempting to get lifted. A big part of the problem here is that I haven't really been told what I've been blocked for. I can only assume it's for describing a user's actions as "whitewashing genocide,"

1472:

The standard of backing up accusations, especially one that could cause Fred Zepelin significant on-wiki reputational damage, is not some obscure Knowledge standard. It's a "being a decent, functioning person in a society who can interact with other humans" standard. Accusing someone of something bad

1468:

your responsibility to back up accusations with evidence, not decrease it. I can accuse somene of liking artificial banana flavoring because being guilty of that offends nobody, breaks no rules, and has no reputational consequence. But if I'm accusing someone of acting in a racist, or a misogynistic,

593:

Actually,it was me. And I too regret that the block isn't longer, but I will leave it as is is and offer Smefs the opportunity to change their behavior, with this warning: any recurrence of attacks on other editors will result in an indefinite block. Please take us seriously in this, personal umbrage

2082:

You aren’t breaking an exact rule, you seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding or concern as to why baselessly calling a user a psychotic denialist of war crimes isn’t just a violation of policy but a violation of basic decency. I’m not sure, but I don’t think you’ve ever apologized to Fred

1669:

I don't know whether my reply is necessary (probably irrelevant), but I've been reading Smefs' accusations of whitewashing and I do feel compelled to point out that even that line of attack has no basis in reality, as I know most people don't have time to dig through that article history. My edit to

1942:

I apologize for any harm my actions may have caused, and will not accuse other users of bad faith without significant evidence. I had assumed that I had done so, but I was not correct. I am simply interested in ensuring that all articles meet a reasonable standard of truth, and conflicts with other

1692:

When you say that "the problem with Smefs is deeper than a single edit war," you are implying that I am the one who is continuing this. It implies that I am the one who is interested in this. I am not, and it's upsetting that you're mischaracterizing it in this way. I have no interest in continuing

1603:

In any case, this is an unproductive conversation, so I won't bother you any more. My hope was to talk you off the ledge so to speak, in order for you to have your best chance at eventually getting unblocked and being able to return to editing. So as I said above, all I can do is wish you the best.

1527:

These are not random, unfounded accusations, and I am well aware that they are not lighthearted ones. I feel like I have a responsibility to describe things for what they are, and to me this feels like "...seeking to cover up people being able to learn about mass murder, some of the blackest things

1490:

I'm sorry, if you feel that accusing people of awful things without robust evidence in order to win a content dispute is a normal thing, then you're incompatible with this project whether or not that was your first day editing or your 5,000th. You accused someone of seeking to cover up people being

1207:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword

640:

from an IP address. Given the edit summary, the fact that the article was extremely obscure (and an orphan at the time, with no other articles linking to it) and the edit being done to revert my changes after the blocked editor reverted a host of my other recent edits, the circumstantial evidence

99:

I appreciate your concern, but neither of my edits meet the criteria of being considered "disruptive" so I will be adding them back. My first edit simply changed the text to match the information in the provided source. My second edit removed information totally irrelevant to the section it was in.

2242:

Leaving aside the fact that the information in the pamphlet is corroborated by numerous other pages and sources, I want you to elucidate this to me: Why do you think my assumption of bad faith is not accurate? And why do you think that you should be the one to decide what topics I should or should

2097:

Can you not see how that is incredibly confusing? I haven't broken any rules, but I am for some reason banned for breaking a rule. I didn't violate policy but I violated policy. Like, what? I also think you're misinterpreting what I said. If you read over our exchange, my specific wording was that

1684:

The inclusion of the second source is completely irrelevant to your edits. Your edits did not add information. They simply disqualified the actions committed by the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces. It is so plain to see that you did make clear judgements -- changing wording to "alleged," removing important

1621:

Is it a simple belief? Is there not sufficient evidence to determine bad faith? Have "a lot of people" really reviewed my claims? Can you not find a significant amount of evidence that I repeatedly provided in the thread above and in many, many other places to constitute "sufficient evidence" that

2227:

Given your use of a publication of the Rhodesian Ministry of Information, your argument here is quite weak. To be perfectly frank, if you're ever unblocked -- which you will probably not be so long as you continue to double-down on your assumption of bad faith being accurate -- it really ought to

2067:

extensively throughout this very bureaucratic and slow process, and it is not helpful because I cannot apologize for what I don't understand. In my appeal to the May block, the problem was extensively addressed because I actually understood what I did wrong, namely not knowing of the rule against

1585:

Could it not be easily backed up by some guy with a lot of time on his hands just wanting to screw with me for insisting on edits he disliked? That makes sense to me. I have to say that I'm not usually a confrontational person, and again, I have tried my very best to assume good faith. Do you not

1531:

This also cannot be considered in isolation. Fred Zepelin originally found this article because we had a dispute multiple weeks ago, and he has continued to hound my page, going back months to find edits I made and undoing them. This includes the Zimbabwe article. I hope you understand that it is

1440:

I feel as though I've extensively clarified that it was not an insult or disparaging. I was not insulting Fred Zepelin or his character, I was simply attempting to describe in as neutral language as I could possibly manage his behavior. It was, again, not in bad faith. To me, it feels like your

1747:

This user is, by the way, continuing to hound me and harass me despite the fact that I am currently blocked (for little cause, might I add). I'd just like to note this to document his bad faith behavior and ask him for the nth time to leave me the fuck alone. This is beyond unhealthy and shows

1184:

If this is about me claiming that Fred Zepelin was attempting to whitewash massacres, I'd like to know why that isn't true? Again, it's not a personal attack. The user has changed language discrediting proven massacres committed by paramilitary groups against Black Zimbabweans as "alleged" and

2582:

I have yet to be given a genuine reasoning behind my block. I was blocked for accusing another user of whitewashing a genocide, which I have backed up with extensive evidence showing the user was acting in bad faith previously. I will paste my response again here. I feel that I have provided

1969: 2191:, attempted to get the article taken down through conflict of interest dispute which was continually denied, reported me to a "No Nazis" group (lol) in an attempt to get a hoarde of meatpuppets on his side, etc. This is, I will remind you, only days after I had a conflict with him. 2044:

am not going to provide coaching for what wording might work to achieve an unblock. However, the May 2024 block shown above starts with "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors." My decline started with the link

1441:

interpretation of Knowledge policy against harassment is so impossibly broad that it discourages any sort of fair discourse on other editors' actions and requires being applied unfairly to be enforced at all. I do not think this block could survive any sort of scrutiny at all.

1444:

Also, I feel like it is an understandable misinterpretation to assume an article with a section called "Policy against whitewashing" is an effective part of Knowledge policy. Again, I am not an experienced user and I'd ask you to please extend some understanding towards

1810:

I'm not going to accept that unblock request, so you'll have to wait for another admin. I imagine what is happening is admins who patrol unblocks have read your unblock request and decided their not interested in joining this conversation when they decline.

2194:

This is, by the way, not an isolated incident. The user has a long history of hounding users he disagrees with, which was why I initially insulted him by calling him psychotic. He has wiped much of this from his talk page, but here are a few examples:

2331:

You’d be surprised how many times I’ve been accused of being a sockpuppet of some random user somebody disagrees with. I’m sorry you have such a conspiracy theorist mindset but I can tell you have zero interest in actually trying to get unblocked.

310:

Even if you are absolutely correct, and I don't think you are- we don't fight fire with fire here. There are proper channels to address bad behavior. Your behavior is totally inappropriate for any public, civil forum. I am declining your request.

275:

and making bad faith edits to every single page I am active in based on my disagreement with him over a fairly innocuous line in a page on a Canadian right-wing think tank. Based on the massive volume of posts accusing this user of the same thing

2346:

If you were just going to go and do this I would never have bothered writing such a carefully worded, in-depth explanation of what you were doing wrong in hopes of giving you assistance in getting unblocked, let alone assuming good faith at all.

821:

you stated "links I've made to my late great-granduncle's page" - those are your own words. You have made the assertion that "multiple people have claimed are completely ridiculous" in regards to this COI, but no one has said this, anywhere.

802:

I edited it and provided a reliable secondary source. I don't see what your problem is? Also, you already posted (multiple times) about your false COI allegations which multiple people have claimed are completely ridiculous. You're wrong,

907:

I'd be careful with those accusations lest you get blocked. Either way, any impartial analysis would find it's probably you spreading half truths. Either you completely misread my comment or are intentionally misinterpreting it. I wonder

2746:- impossible to educate this editor because eveyone who disagrees is a "sockpuppet". multiple baseless accusations while blocked for personal attacks, so removing talk page access. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has 2611:(By you! What a crazy coincidence! Nice alt, Fred) even after an updated link was provided. The user continued to do the same thing to many articles I edited. On the Hin Bredendieck article, he removed reliably sourced information 1397:

my comment conflicts? This is not intended in bad faith. I am legitimately confused. I have read it over multiple times and cannot find any conflicts with what I said. I genuinely believe Fred Zepelin's actions violate Knowledge's

2308:

a consistent pattern of behavior over many months that many, many, many other users have experienced, and describing his behavior as just "looking at a user’s contributions" is so simplistic it might as well be a lie.

2419:

Your talk page is also fascinating -- really all of the users who have come here to agree with Fred Zepelin are there. Deepfriedokra, Bishonen. Interesting stuff! But I'll be sure not to assume any bad faith here.

2311:

If I were able to get an unbiased moderator, which I cannot since I'm new to this site and do not have many alts and connections unlike someone else, I feel like they would see my situation for what it truly

2120:

over and over, saying the user is deliberately targeting you and/or deliberately trying to cover up war crimes. You have not provided sufficient evidence (i.e. diffs) so you are also functionally violating

1494:

I say all of this as a completely uninvolved editor, who has never even read the article in question until now and as far as I know, have never had a single interaction with anyone here who isn't an admin.

915:(more than once, actually) you keep bringing up and basically discounted it as irrelevant. It is so obviously a resolved issue I don't see why you think continuously bringing it up will change anything. 911:

I never claimed that Gerda_Arendt made the Josef Albers edits (which I have been vindicated for anyway after you posted greyscape to the RS page). That's nowhere in my comment. What I said is that

1399: 1402:. This is not a personal attack, it's a genuine critique of his actions. I feel like I have to say it again but I actually, really, do not know what I did wrong and would love to understand. 1567:

Whitewashing implies a motive. That has to be backed up. There are many, many reasons for content to be removed; you can't just assume the most negative one. That's the very foundation of

578:

Perhaps you were not paying attention when 331dot wrote, "attacks on other editors are not considered in unblock requests." My only regret is that the block is only for one week. Thanks,

2599:, finding references to the individual on other pages and removing reliably sourced information there so that it could be removed from the original page. In some cases, the user plainly 2160:, finding references to the individual on other pages and removing reliably sourced information there so that it could be removed from the original page. In some cases, the user plainly 1733:

I do not care if you visit this talk page again. I want you to leave me alone -- remove your bookmark to my contribs, whatever. I will be filing a harassment notice if you do not do so.

871:

has already commented on this by the way, as you've posted multiple times with the same question they've graciously answered. I don't see why you keep bringing it up -- it's a non-issue.

594:

at being disagreed with doesn't justify your behavior, and we won't allow you to edit this collaborative encyclopedia project if you keep on behaving as if other editors are enemies.

2375:

You were the one who commented here, on my talk page. But when I call you out for being a sockpuppet, I deserve my permissions revoked? Laughable. You can leave whenever you want.

2139:

I feel that I have provided significant evidence in previous replies, but here's a comprehensive list of diffs showing conclusively that this user was harassing and hounding me:

2397:'s alleged COI, are almost instantly shut down. Only a few select users who he so clearly either controls as meatpuppets or more likely as sockpuppet accounts concur with him. 288:) is allowed to continue doing so. Of course, I am instantly blocked for calling him out and being rightfully angry. Why? I am genuinely curious what your justification is. 2588: 2146: 1536:

when this user has dedicated themselves to stalking my page for weeks on end for no reason. This is also a pattern of behavior that other users have complained about. (

1689:. You are attempting to hide behind the addition of a single secondary source through which no additional information was gleaned to justify your unfounded edits. 1509:

I appreciate your response but you are acting as if I have never backed these accusations up when I have many, many, times. If you'd like me to do so again, here:

2125:. Those are your policy violations. If you want to get unblocked either provide hard evidence the other user was in the wrong or drop it and formally apologize. 395:

Then that's your answer. And I will remove talkpage access if you do anything like that again. Attacks on other editors are not considered in unblock requests.

2707:

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.

2014:

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.

1271:

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.

345:

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.

2462:

Those replies were also from far before we came into conflict. It's so obviously a sockpuppet account, I don't know how you could think this would work lmao

1571:

and until you understand what the difference is, I can't imagine any admin will unblock you. Best wishes; I hope you're able to smoothly return to editing.

1600:

A lot of people have reviewed your claims and found no evidence of what you say. Your simple belief, asserted stridently, does not constitute evidence.

954:

I'm not "tempting fate." I'm editing a collaborative encyclopedia project and providing reliable secondary sources and ensuring neutral point of view.

837:"You have made the assertion that "multiple people have claimed are completely ridiculous" in regards to this COI, but no one has said this, anywhere." 2583:

significant evidence in previous replies, but here's a comprehensive list of diffs showing conclusively that this user was harassing and hounding me:

2561: 1921: 1163: 246: 1425:

This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Knowledge's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

2246:

I hate to do this, but considering the behavior of the user in question and your typing style I can only assume you are another sockpuppet of his.

982: 66: 572:

That you do not see insults as a form of personal attack precludes unblocking you. You made other personal attacks in unblock requests, including

1491:

able to learn about mass murder, some of the blackest things that humanity has done. This is not a "oopsy daisy, I'm just inexperienced!" moment.

497:. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to 1376: 2603:

that the original source did not mention the name when the link had died, despite the fact that the updated link is easily available online (

2304:

I'm going to assume that you are not Fred Zepelin in this response, even though you obviously are. I'd request a checkuser if I cared enough.

2164:

that the original source did not mention the name when the link had died, despite the fact that the updated link is easily available online (

2652: 2644: 2515: 2463: 2449: 2421: 2398: 2376: 2362: 2318: 2276: 2247: 2228:

come conditional on a significant topic ban. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe for sure, but looking at the revert history, probably a heck of a lot more.

2214: 2175:

The user continued to do the same thing to many articles I edited. On the Hin Bredendieck article, he removed reliably sourced information

2099: 2069: 2030: 1944: 1875: 1826: 1797: 1783: 1749: 1734: 1706: 1654: 1636: 1628: 1587: 1554: 1451: 1403: 1362: 1330: 1301: 1287: 1186: 1117: 1063: 955: 916: 872: 843: 804: 739: 659: 531:

to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an

382: 289: 200: 101: 65:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

1653:

I legitimately do not understand how I can assume good faith from this user when they have shown the pattern of behavior that they have.

1343:

An administrator will review your unblock request when one gets around to it, although it's normally not too long. I recommend you read

842:

Translating a Knowledge page (which already existed) of a notable relative is not COI, no matter how much you want it to be. Sorry bud.

2673:

It's impossible to edit collaboratively when you just say everyone is a sockpuppet. Talk page access removed. See below for options.

930: 818: 785: 759: 47: 2595:, and the offending user's edits are still in place. The exact same day, the user went to an article I had just recently created, 2759: 2640: 2208: 1686: 1513: 707: 699: 457: 281: 2589:

finally a page on the talk page was created to which the response was mixed between whether I or the offending user was correct.

2584: 2147:

finally a page on the talk page was created to which the response was mixed between whether I or the offending user was correct.

2142: 100:

This is fairly obvious and not really up for debate, so I don't see why a snarky talk page comment is necessary. Thanks anyway.

1968:

suggests that an appeal should demonstrate an understanding of the problem such that a repeat seems unlikely. The report is in

540: 59: 2608: 2600: 2169: 2161: 703: 494: 2754: 2692: 1999: 1256: 1234: 1031: 452: 330: 150: 27: 1545: 641:

is strong. Apparently checkuser is not allowed to link accounts and IP addresses, which I learned when I requested one.

2734: 2537: 1897: 1541: 1375:

I do not respond to emails about blocks unless there is a pressing concern that requires privacy. If you don't see how

1139: 1019: 222: 1516:

on the actions of ZANLA and ZIPRA paramilitary groups, and refers to their atrocities as "alleged" despite them being

2632: 2393:

I'll also add that this user's suggestions, particularly when he requests outside counsel such as on the question of

2200: 1834: 1820: 1805: 1791: 1459: 1435: 1411: 1388: 1370: 1356: 1071: 2636: 2204: 797: 771: 753: 673: 2509:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1869:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1111:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

719: 357: 194:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2616: 2180: 611: 1816: 1431: 1384: 1352: 1043: 889:

article, but never added that Hin Bredendieck was a student of Albers. You added that. Just you. My question at

1423:

What you said is clearly covered. What you're linking to as a "policy against whitewashing" is clearly labeled

679: 1338: 1324: 650: 77:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in 2739: 1394: 1087: 1024: 963: 139: 2429: 2284: 2270: 2255: 2237: 1757: 1742: 1728: 1714: 1679: 1662: 1644: 1613: 1595: 1580: 1562: 1524:

documented by both sources on the page and on other articles, including with horrific photographic evidence.

1504: 941: 924: 902: 880: 851: 831: 812: 637: 109: 2628: 2620: 2555: 2196: 2184: 1915: 1521: 1157: 1047: 536: 502: 437: 240: 55: 31: 2524: 2471: 2457: 2443: 2406: 2384: 2370: 2356: 2341: 2326: 2299: 2222: 2134: 2107: 2092: 1884: 1618:

I won't continue to argue, but I'd like to give some guiding questions to you or anyone else reading this:

1586:

agree that this can become difficult to do if a user shows consistent evidence of hounding and harassment?

1126: 412: 390: 209: 2624: 2612: 2532: 2188: 2176: 1892: 1517: 1134: 217: 2520: 2077: 2058: 1880: 1473:

without evidence in proportionality to the offense is not impossibly broad and doing so is not neutral.

1122: 205: 1812: 1427: 1380: 1348: 1039: 498: 74: 2682: 2546: 1906: 1148: 231: 2729: 2510: 1870: 1421:

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.

1112: 1014: 617: 546: 432: 195: 130: 78: 2615:, (only for this one student! How curious!), repeatedly orphaned the article, etc. He undid my edit 2179:, (only for this one student! How curious!), repeatedly orphaned the article, etc. He undid my edit 994: 2504: 1989: 1864: 1320: 1106: 509:, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. 189: 43: 1361:

I did read it. I still fail to see how what I did warrants a block. I genuinely don't understand.

90: 2565: 2542: 1973: 1925: 1902: 1167: 1144: 1083: 749: 669: 583: 250: 227: 2772: 2660: 2038: 1952: 893:

was about the notability of the subject, not Albers. These half-truths from you are disturbing.

562: 2266: 2233: 1724: 1675: 1609: 1576: 1500: 1464:

This is a very disappointing response. If whitewashing were a more explicit policy, that would

990: 937: 898: 827: 793: 767: 715: 646: 587: 558: 532: 490: 441: 277: 143: 86: 2528: 2261:

of luck to you; since I think you're beyond advice, there's no need for me to offer any more.

1888: 1130: 478: 376: 271:

is not acting in good faith and I think that is fairly obvious. The user has been hounding me

213: 174: 2768: 2678: 1309: 2743: 2439: 2352: 2337: 2295: 2172:(By you! What a crazy coincidence! Nice alt, Fred) even after an updated link was provided. 2130: 2122: 2088: 1469:

or homophobic, or whatever fashion, a charge that serious requires evidence that's serious.

1295: 1246: 1194: 603: 470: 404: 368: 166: 1719:

I'd like to make it clear: I will not be visiting this talk page again. Good luck to you.

320: 46:

with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the

8: 2551: 1911: 1528:

that humanity has done," which is why I am so persistent in my opposition to his actions.

1316: 1282: 1153: 506: 297: 236: 51: 2054: 1985: 1850: 1079: 1057: 745: 686: 665: 624: 579: 2434:

Maybe it’s because Fred Zeppelin has a stronger case than you do? Just a possibility.

1315:

yeah, no. I have nothing to offer here. I have no familiarity. (as was said above) —

1208:

your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

1062:

for a second opinion on this since he seems more familiar with Fred Zepelin's behavior

2641:

discounting a reliable source describing an actual massacre in the Rhodesian Bush War

2315:

I told you to stay off my talk page before, and that means on different accounts too.

2262: 2229: 2209:

discounting a reliable source describing an actual massacre in the Rhodesian Bush War

1782:

How long should I expect to wait for an administrator to review and undo this block?

1720: 1697: 1671: 1605: 1572: 1496: 986: 933: 894: 890: 868: 862: 823: 789: 763: 727: 711: 642: 554: 268: 82: 2764: 2753:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge's

2701: 2674: 2008: 1265: 1030:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge's

451:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge's

339: 316: 149:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge's

1976:) as the inability to understand how it might be a problem. For example, read the 2596: 2435: 2394: 2348: 2333: 2291: 2157: 2126: 2117: 2084: 2083:

Zeppelin for making remarks about them that are not only hurtful but defamatory.

1242: 971: 886: 777: 693: 631: 597: 528: 464: 398: 362: 272: 160: 2592: 2150: 1537: 285: 35: 2243:

not be allowed to edit? I've read almost everything on Rhodesia that there is.

2156:

The exact same day, the user went to an article I had just recently created,

2113: 2064: 2050: 2046: 2023: 1981: 1965: 1943:

editors have gotten in the way of that. It will not happen again. Thank you.

1796:

Hi. It's been a week. When can I expect an administrator to review my appeal?

1568: 1533: 1481: 1474: 1416: 1344: 999: 733: 16: 2063:

I am not asking for coaching. I am asking for what I did wrong! I have read

664:

If that was you, you are playing with fire. Careful lest you burn yourself.

574: 26:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge, as you did at

2714: 1701: 781: 423: 121: 2604: 2165: 1379:

is an unacceptable personal attack or is unlikely you will be unblocked.

1212:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Knowledge,

817:

This is not at all accurate. You used a blog-like website as the source.

312: 115: 1329:

Where can I get an admin who can add a second opinion/ reply to my post?

517:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;

1238: 267:

I'd like to understand exactly what I did to warrant a block? The user

758:

Anticipating such a revert pattern, I have opened a discussion on the

732:

If they exceed three reverts in 24 hours, you might want to report at

985:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

567: 381:

Yes, I commented on that in my original appeal. Please respond to it.

22: 788:

Bredendieck, calling him a "late great-granduncle". Possible COI.

656:

That's pretty old (three days) and a one-off. I'll let it ride.

2720: 1078:

yeah, no. I have nothing to offer here. I have no familiarity.

1005: 885:

Also a misrepresentation. Gerda_Arendt added many things to the

2585:

This was the initial contact between me and the offending user.

2143:

This was the initial contact between me and the offending user.

1034:, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 153:, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 527:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

1393:

I am asking you to please humor me and point me to where in

929:

Did you, or did you not, state that Hin Bredendieck is your

636:

seems likely to me that the editor evaded their block with

1702:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

780:

to force in their edits of Bredendieck being a student of

744:

You certainly like to tempt fate, don't you. Please stop.

2689:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1996:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1253:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

327:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2709:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2016:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1625:

Either way, have a good one. I do appreciate your input.

1273:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

347:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2361:

You and your other accounts do not deserve good faith.

444:. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has 1685:

information on the documentation of these atrocities,

698:

Fresh off their one-week block, Smefs has returned to

2275:

I quite frankly don't know what you expect me to do.

2503:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

2153:, and the offending user's edits are still in place. 1977: 1863:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

1224:

will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and

1105:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

784:. Of note, they previously indicated that they were 188:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

2613:

stating that Bredendieck was taught by Josef Albers

2448:

Maybe it's also because you're a sockpuppet of his.

2177:

stating that Bredendieck was taught by Josef Albers

54:with them. Alternatively, you can read Knowledge's 522:Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 440:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to 142:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to 58:page, and ask for independent help at one of the 706:after I found a secondary source for a section. 73:Please ensure you are familiar with Knowledge's 1279:Then here, since I would like a second opinion 983:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1218:the block is no longer necessary because you 913:Gerda_Arendt commented on the false COI issue 776:Also just noticed that they went to back to 1221:understand what you have been blocked for, 539:. In some cases, it may be appropriate to 493:according to the reverts you have made on 2623:, even on my edit to the Carls Jr. page, 2187:, even on my edit to the Carls Jr. page, 1972:. The problem is not so much the attack ( 762:in an attempt to stave off exactly that. 489:You currently appear to be engaged in an 1514:removed extensive amounts of information 1036:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} 155:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} 1227:will make useful contributions instead. 2605:https://www.sscartcenter.org/about-us/ 2166:https://www.sscartcenter.org/about-us/ 1025:personal attacks towards other editors 140:personal attacks towards other editors 1551:Thanks for your response nonetheless, 495:Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War‎ 67:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 704:Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War 543:. If you engage in an edit war, you 981:There is currently a discussion at 28:True North Centre for Public Policy 13: 2719: 2587:We proceeded to have an edit war, 2495: 2145:We proceeded to have an edit war, 1855: 1347:and rewrite your unblock request. 1097: 1004: 422: 180: 120: 14: 2784: 2591:I stopped responding in order to 2149:I stopped responding in order to 541:request temporary page protection 356:Have you already forgotten this? 42:If you are engaged in an article 976: 484: 21: 2757:, then submit a request to the 2609:restore old, outdated revisions 2170:restore old, outdated revisions 1532:incredibly difficult for me to 455:, then submit a request to the 501:with others, to avoid editing 1: 2760:Unblock Ticket Request System 2617:on the George Bridges article 2607:). He would then continue to 2181:on the George Bridges article 2168:). He would then continue to 1395:Knowledge:No_personal_attacks 458:Unblock Ticket Request System 436:temporarily from editing for 134:from editing for a period of 1748:serious signs of obsession. 7: 2651:) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2507:, who declined the request. 1867:, who declined the request. 1400:policy against whitewashing 1109:, who declined the request. 680:Back and edit warring again 438:abuse of editing privileges 192:, who declined the request. 10: 2789: 702:on an edit that I made to 110:06:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 91:05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 79:loss of editing privileges 30:. Your edits appear to be 2773:19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2755:guide to appealing blocks 2693:guide to appealing blocks 2683:19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2661:16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2472:16:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2458:16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2444:15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2407:16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2385:16:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2371:16:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2357:16:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2342:16:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2327:16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2300:16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2285:00:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2000:guide to appealing blocks 1953:03:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 1257:guide to appealing blocks 1247:19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 1235:guide to appealing blocks 1032:guide to appealing blocks 453:guide to appealing blocks 442:make useful contributions 331:guide to appealing blocks 151:guide to appealing blocks 144:make useful contributions 34:and have been or will be 2656: 2648: 2467: 2453: 2430:21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2425: 2402: 2380: 2366: 2322: 2280: 2271:22:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2256:21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2251: 2238:21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2223:20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2218: 2135:05:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2108:16:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2103: 2093:04:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2078:16:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2073: 2059:01:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2039:14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) 2034: 1990:09:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC) 1948: 1835:05:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC) 1830: 1821:22:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) 1806:03:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC) 1801: 1792:00:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 1787: 1758:00:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 1753: 1743:19:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1738: 1729:19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1715:19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1710: 1680:19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1663:19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1658: 1645:22:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1640: 1632: 1614:21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1596:19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1591: 1581:17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1563:16:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1558: 1505:16:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1460:15:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1455: 1436:15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1412:15:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1407: 1389:15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1371:00:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1366: 1357:00:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1339:00:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1334: 1325:00:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 1310:22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 1305: 1296:23:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 1291: 1195:22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 1190: 1088:23:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 1072:23:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 1067: 1048:22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 1023:from editing for making 995:20:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 964:07:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 959: 942:18:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 931:"late great-granduncle"? 925:13:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 920: 903:00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 881:08:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 876: 852:12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 847: 832:00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 813:07:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 808: 798:22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 772:22:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 754:22:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 720:21:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 674:19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) 651:18:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) 563:00:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 507:try to reach a consensus 386: 293: 105: 612:12:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 588:08:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 533:appropriate noticeboard 479:23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 413:23:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 391:23:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 377:23:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 321:00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 298:23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 284:and using meatpuppets ( 175:22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 75:policies and guidelines 2724: 2500: 1860: 1237:for more information. 1102: 1054:I'd also like to ping 1009: 618:Possible block evasion 427: 278:User_talk:Fred_Zepelin 185: 125: 2723: 2552:change block settings 2499: 1912:change block settings 1859: 1813:ScottishFinnishRadish 1428:ScottishFinnishRadish 1381:ScottishFinnishRadish 1349:ScottishFinnishRadish 1154:change block settings 1101: 1040:ScottishFinnishRadish 1008: 426: 237:change block settings 184: 124: 60:relevant noticeboards 1700:, please read this: 2112:You keep violating 575:UTRS appeal #88346 48:article's talk page 2725: 2501: 1861: 1103: 1010: 819:In your own words, 537:dispute resolution 428: 186: 126: 56:dispute resolution 2738:from editing for 1512:Fred Zepelin has 1080:-- Deepfriedokra 746:-- Deepfriedokra 666:-- Deepfriedokra 608: 580:-- Deepfriedokra 475: 409: 373: 171: 2780: 2740:Personal attacks 2706: 2700: 2571: 2569: 2558: 2540: 2538:deleted contribs 2498: 2027: 2013: 2007: 1970:this ANI archive 1931: 1929: 1918: 1900: 1898:deleted contribs 1858: 1286: 1270: 1264: 1233:Please read the 1173: 1171: 1160: 1142: 1140:deleted contribs 1100: 1061: 1037: 980: 979: 866: 743: 731: 697: 690: 663: 635: 628: 609: 606: 602: 600: 577: 512:Points to note: 488: 487: 476: 473: 469: 467: 410: 407: 403: 401: 374: 371: 367: 365: 344: 338: 256: 254: 243: 225: 223:deleted contribs 183: 172: 169: 165: 163: 156: 25: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2751: 2717: 2712: 2704: 2698: 2697:, then use the 2686: 2664: 2597:Hin Bredendieck 2559: 2549: 2535: 2518: 2511:blocking policy 2496: 2395:Hin Bredendieck 2158:Hin Bredendieck 2021: 2019: 2011: 2005: 2004:, then use the 1993: 1956: 1919: 1909: 1895: 1878: 1871:blocking policy 1856: 1853: 1851:Unblock request 1280: 1276: 1268: 1262: 1261:, then use the 1250: 1198: 1161: 1151: 1137: 1120: 1113:blocking policy 1098: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1035: 1028: 1002: 977: 974: 887:Hin Bredendieck 860: 778:Hin Bredendieck 737: 725: 691: 684: 682: 657: 629: 622: 620: 604: 598: 596: 573: 570: 485: 482: 481: 471: 465: 463: 449: 405: 399: 397: 369: 363: 361: 350: 342: 336: 335:, then use the 324: 301: 244: 234: 220: 203: 196:blocking policy 181: 178: 177: 167: 161: 159: 154: 147: 118: 44:content dispute 19: 12: 11: 5: 2786: 2752: 2749: 2727:You have been 2726: 2718: 2716: 2713: 2687: 2671: 2667:Decline reason 2621:Martin Sellner 2580: 2576:Request reason 2573: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2460: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2373: 2344: 2316: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2244: 2212: 2192: 2185:Martin Sellner 2173: 2154: 2140: 1994: 1963: 1959:Decline reason 1940: 1936:Request reason 1933: 1854: 1852: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1794: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1745: 1704: 1694: 1690: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1601: 1552: 1549: 1529: 1525: 1510: 1492: 1488: 1470: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1317:David Eppstein 1299: 1298: 1283:David Eppstein 1251: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1216: 1205: 1201:Decline reason 1182: 1178:Request reason 1175: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1029: 1012:You have been 1011: 1003: 1001: 998: 973: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 909: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 840: 774: 681: 678: 677: 676: 619: 616: 615: 614: 569: 566: 552:Final warning. 525: 524: 519: 450: 447: 430:You have been 429: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 352: 325: 308: 304:Decline reason 265: 261:Request reason 258: 179: 148: 128:You have been 127: 119: 117: 114: 113: 112: 97: 71: 70: 63: 18: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2785: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2756: 2750:been revoked. 2747: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2722: 2711: 2710: 2703: 2696: 2694: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2670: 2668: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2579: 2577: 2572: 2567: 2563: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2534: 2530: 2529:global blocks 2526: 2525:active blocks 2522: 2517: 2512: 2508: 2506: 2505:administrator 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2418: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2345: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2123:WP:ASPERSIONS 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2025: 2018: 2017: 2010: 2003: 2001: 1992: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1978:request above 1975: 1971: 1967: 1962: 1960: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1939: 1937: 1932: 1927: 1923: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1899: 1894: 1890: 1889:global blocks 1886: 1885:active blocks 1882: 1877: 1872: 1868: 1866: 1865:administrator 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1620: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1526: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1284: 1278: 1277: 1275: 1274: 1267: 1260: 1258: 1249: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1219: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1204: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1181: 1179: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1136: 1132: 1131:global blocks 1128: 1127:active blocks 1124: 1119: 1114: 1110: 1108: 1107:administrator 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1059: 1058:Deepfriedokra 1053: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1033: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1007: 997: 996: 992: 988: 984: 965: 961: 957: 953: 943: 939: 935: 932: 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 905: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 870: 864: 859: 853: 849: 845: 841: 838: 835: 834: 833: 829: 825: 820: 816: 815: 814: 810: 806: 801: 800: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 741: 735: 729: 724: 723: 722: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 695: 688: 687:Deepfriedokra 675: 671: 667: 661: 655: 654: 653: 652: 648: 644: 639: 633: 626: 625:Deepfriedokra 613: 610: 607: 601: 592: 591: 590: 589: 585: 581: 576: 565: 564: 560: 556: 553: 550: 549:from editing. 548: 542: 538: 534: 530: 523: 520: 518: 515: 514: 513: 510: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 480: 477: 474: 468: 460: 459: 454: 448:been revoked. 445: 443: 439: 435: 434: 425: 414: 411: 408: 402: 394: 393: 392: 388: 384: 380: 379: 378: 375: 372: 366: 358: 355: 354: 353: 349: 348: 341: 334: 332: 323: 322: 318: 314: 307: 305: 300: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 274: 270: 264: 262: 257: 252: 248: 242: 238: 233: 229: 224: 219: 215: 214:global blocks 211: 210:active blocks 207: 202: 197: 193: 191: 190:administrator 176: 173: 170: 164: 152: 145: 141: 137: 133: 132: 123: 111: 107: 103: 98: 95: 94: 93: 92: 88: 84: 81:. Thank you. 80: 76: 68: 64: 61: 57: 53: 49: 45: 41: 40: 39: 37: 33: 29: 24: 2758: 2735:indefinitely 2733: 2728: 2708: 2690: 2688: 2672: 2666: 2665: 2581: 2575: 2574: 2547:creation log 2514: 2502: 2263:CoffeeCrumbs 2230:CoffeeCrumbs 2020: 2015: 1997: 1995: 1964: 1958: 1957: 1941: 1935: 1934: 1907:creation log 1874: 1862: 1721:Fred Zepelin 1698:Fred Zepelin 1672:Fred Zepelin 1606:CoffeeCrumbs 1573:CoffeeCrumbs 1497:CoffeeCrumbs 1487:a guideline. 1484: 1477: 1465: 1424: 1420: 1300: 1272: 1254: 1252: 1232: 1213: 1206: 1200: 1199: 1183: 1177: 1176: 1149:creation log 1116: 1104: 1020:indefinitely 1018: 1013: 987:Fred Zepelin 975: 972:ANI May 2024 934:Fred Zepelin 895:Fred Zepelin 863:Gerda Arendt 824:Fred Zepelin 790:Fred Zepelin 782:Josef Albers 764:Fred Zepelin 728:Fred Zepelin 712:Fred Zepelin 683: 643:Fred Zepelin 621: 595: 571: 555:Fred Zepelin 551: 544: 526: 521: 516: 511: 503:disruptively 483: 462: 456: 431: 396: 360: 351: 346: 328: 326: 309: 303: 302: 282:by dogpiling 269:Fred Zepelin 266: 260: 259: 232:creation log 199: 187: 158: 135: 129: 83:Fred Zepelin 72: 20: 2765:Floquenbeam 2675:Floquenbeam 1522:extensively 1518:extensively 1480:policy and 499:collaborate 138:for making 50:, and seek 2744:harassment 2543:filter log 2436:Dronebogus 2349:Dronebogus 2334:Dronebogus 2292:Dronebogus 2127:Dronebogus 2085:Dronebogus 1903:filter log 1145:filter log 891:WP:GERMANY 869:WP:GERMANY 786:related to 694:Acroterion 632:Acroterion 599:Acroterion 466:Acroterion 400:Acroterion 364:Acroterion 228:filter log 162:Acroterion 32:disruptive 17:April 2024 2715:July 2024 2691:read the 2562:checkuser 2521:block log 1998:read the 1922:checkuser 1881:block log 1825:*they're 1255:read the 1164:checkuser 1123:block log 760:talk page 638:this edit 529:talk page 505:, and to 329:read the 247:checkuser 206:block log 52:consensus 2533:contribs 2118:WP:CIVIL 2051:Johnuniq 2024:Johnuniq 1982:Johnuniq 1893:contribs 1466:increase 1135:contribs 1000:May 2024 710:so far. 700:edit-war 535:or seek 491:edit war 273:WP:HOUND 218:contribs 116:May 2024 96:Hi Fred, 36:reverted 2730:blocked 2702:unblock 2619:, then 2593:WP:DENY 2556:unblock 2183:, then 2151:WP:DENY 2009:unblock 1916:unblock 1448:Thanks, 1266:unblock 1158:unblock 1015:blocked 867:, from 547:blocked 545:may be 433:blocked 340:unblock 286:WP:MEAT 241:unblock 131:blocked 2114:WP:AGF 2065:WP:GAB 2047:WP:GAB 1966:WP:GAB 1569:WP:AGF 1534:WP:AGF 1482:WP:AGF 1475:WP:NPA 1417:WP:NPA 1345:WP:GAB 908:which. 734:WP:EWN 708:Twice, 605:(talk) 568:Nutter 472:(talk) 406:(talk) 370:(talk) 313:331dot 168:(talk) 136:1 week 2695:first 2653:Smefs 2645:Smefs 2637:three 2516:Smefs 2464:Smefs 2450:Smefs 2422:Smefs 2399:Smefs 2377:Smefs 2363:Smefs 2319:Smefs 2277:Smefs 2248:Smefs 2215:Smefs 2205:three 2100:Smefs 2070:Smefs 2031:Smefs 2002:first 1945:Smefs 1876:Smefs 1827:Smefs 1798:Smefs 1784:Smefs 1750:Smefs 1735:Smefs 1707:Smefs 1655:Smefs 1637:Smefs 1629:Smefs 1588:Smefs 1555:Smefs 1452:Smefs 1445:that. 1419:says 1404:Smefs 1363:Smefs 1331:Smefs 1302:Smefs 1288:Smefs 1259:first 1239:Yamla 1187:Smefs 1118:Smefs 1064:Smefs 956:Smefs 917:Smefs 873:Smefs 844:Smefs 805:Smefs 740:Smefs 660:Smefs 383:Smefs 333:first 290:Smefs 201:Smefs 102:Smefs 2769:talk 2748:also 2679:talk 2657:talk 2649:talk 2625:lol. 2601:lied 2468:talk 2454:talk 2440:talk 2426:talk 2403:talk 2381:talk 2367:talk 2353:talk 2338:talk 2323:talk 2296:talk 2281:talk 2267:talk 2252:talk 2234:talk 2219:talk 2189:lol. 2162:lied 2131:talk 2116:and 2104:talk 2089:talk 2074:talk 2055:talk 2035:talk 1986:talk 1974:diff 1949:talk 1831:talk 1817:talk 1802:talk 1788:talk 1754:talk 1739:talk 1725:talk 1711:talk 1676:talk 1659:talk 1641:talk 1633:talk 1610:talk 1592:talk 1577:talk 1559:talk 1501:talk 1456:talk 1432:talk 1408:talk 1385:talk 1377:this 1367:talk 1353:talk 1335:talk 1321:talk 1306:talk 1292:talk 1243:talk 1191:talk 1084:talk 1068:talk 1044:talk 1027:. 991:talk 960:talk 938:talk 921:talk 899:talk 877:talk 848:talk 839:Lol. 828:talk 809:talk 803:man. 794:talk 768:talk 750:talk 716:talk 670:talk 647:talk 584:talk 559:talk 446:also 387:talk 317:talk 294:talk 106:talk 87:talk 2763:. 2742:or 2633:two 2629:one 2566:log 2513:). 2312:is. 2201:two 2197:one 1926:log 1873:). 1687:etc 1168:log 1115:). 1038:. 461:. 251:log 198:). 157:. 2771:) 2705:}} 2699:{{ 2681:) 2669:: 2659:) 2635:, 2631:, 2578:: 2560:• 2554:• 2550:• 2545:• 2541:• 2536:• 2531:• 2527:• 2523:• 2470:) 2456:) 2442:) 2428:) 2405:) 2383:) 2369:) 2355:) 2340:) 2325:) 2298:) 2283:) 2269:) 2254:) 2236:) 2221:) 2203:, 2199:, 2133:) 2106:) 2091:) 2076:) 2057:) 2037:) 2012:}} 2006:{{ 1988:) 1980:. 1961:: 1951:) 1938:: 1920:• 1914:• 1910:• 1905:• 1901:• 1896:• 1891:• 1887:• 1883:• 1833:) 1819:) 1804:) 1790:) 1756:) 1741:) 1727:) 1713:) 1678:) 1661:) 1643:) 1635:) 1612:) 1594:) 1579:) 1561:) 1544:, 1540:, 1520:, 1503:) 1485:is 1478:is 1458:) 1434:) 1410:) 1387:) 1369:) 1355:) 1337:) 1323:) 1308:) 1294:) 1269:}} 1263:{{ 1245:) 1214:or 1203:: 1193:) 1180:: 1162:• 1156:• 1152:• 1147:• 1143:• 1138:• 1133:• 1129:• 1125:• 1086:) 1070:) 1046:) 993:) 962:) 940:) 923:) 901:) 879:) 850:) 830:) 811:) 796:) 770:) 752:) 736:. 718:) 672:) 649:) 586:) 561:) 389:) 359:? 343:}} 337:{{ 319:) 306:: 296:) 263:: 245:• 239:• 235:• 230:• 226:• 221:• 216:• 212:• 208:• 146:. 108:) 89:) 38:. 2767:( 2677:( 2655:( 2647:( 2570:) 2568:) 2564:( 2519:( 2466:( 2452:( 2438:( 2424:( 2401:( 2379:( 2365:( 2351:( 2336:( 2321:( 2294:( 2279:( 2265:( 2250:( 2232:( 2217:( 2129:( 2102:( 2087:( 2072:( 2053:( 2033:( 2026:: 2022:@ 1984:( 1947:( 1930:) 1928:) 1924:( 1879:( 1829:( 1815:( 1800:( 1786:( 1752:( 1737:( 1723:( 1709:( 1696:@ 1674:( 1657:( 1639:( 1631:( 1608:( 1590:( 1575:( 1557:( 1548:) 1546:3 1542:2 1538:1 1499:( 1454:( 1430:( 1406:( 1383:( 1365:( 1351:( 1333:( 1319:( 1304:( 1290:( 1285:: 1281:@ 1241:( 1189:( 1172:) 1170:) 1166:( 1121:( 1082:( 1066:( 1060:: 1056:@ 1042:( 989:( 958:( 936:( 919:( 897:( 875:( 865:: 861:@ 846:( 826:( 807:( 792:( 766:( 748:( 742:: 738:@ 730:: 726:@ 714:( 696:: 692:@ 689:: 685:@ 668:( 662:: 658:@ 645:( 634:: 630:@ 627:: 623:@ 582:( 557:( 385:( 315:( 292:( 255:) 253:) 249:( 204:( 104:( 85:( 69:. 62:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index