![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
OK, we've explained our policies on living people, and you very clearly don't give a damn. Game over. I have blocked you and revoked talk page access to prevent you reinstating the pictures. Guy ( Help!) 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why do you believe you should be unblocked? I was blocked at 09:32, 6 October 2015?by JzG for reinstating 2 pictures of a public figure he removed from my talk page. I recognize now that my reaction was ill-advised and I should have asked an explanation before. My only defense is that the pictures were placed on my talk page by another user: "I love the contrast between what she really looks like, and what she looks like in the Wikipedia infobox photo.-- Toddy1 (talk) 4:44 pm, 5 September 2015, Saturday (2 months, 19 days ago) (UTC+2)" I left the pictures on my talk page because I found them funny and I had no idea that it was againstWP:BLP since in over a month no one visiting my talk page (including administrators) ever complained. After reading carefully WP:BLP, I now realize that I should have removed them instantly. My violation was not willful and, if you unblock me, I can guarantee that, in the future, I will be very vigilant in ensuring that I am not in violation of WP:BLP, nor of any other WP policy for that matter. JzG also mentioned that my username was objectionable, and I agree to change it as soon as I am unblocked.
If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Science, ancient Greece, current affairs
Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I am currently blocked for a violation of WP:BLP, which I fully recognize, but was not aware of at the time (2 pictures of a public figure on my talk page). My sense of humor and derision has also earned me a bad name. JzG visited my talk page to warn me after I made the comment "I won't accuse him of working for the CIA. Even though their standards of recruitment are not very high, I don't think they have sunken so low as to hire any paranoid crackpot who has fallen prey to conspiracy theories." in response to Trappedinburnley who had written: "your previous posts have made me think you likely work (directly or indirectly) for RT". I recognize this is beyond the pale and I will not do it again. I tend to be sarcastic when I am under attack, a behavior I will try to rein in.
— Againstdisinformation, originally in UTRS appeal #{{{1}}}
Accept reason:
This unblock request is accepted, but under conditions laid dosn below [1]. Againstdisinformation, please understand that this is a WP:LASTCHANCE unblock. If you continue any kind of irritating behavior that led to this block, you will be blocked again. You already started to display some mild signs of that behavior, even before being unblocked, so take care. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for heeding my appeal Vanjagenije. I think it would be more proper to let JzG answer to you himself but, since other editors have made comments, I will give you my interpretation. Following an exchange between an editor and me on RT (TV network), where he suggested that I was working for the Russian Government and I replied that he was a crackpot, Drmies asked JzG to “swing (your) cudgel around a little bit, just for show.” He subsequently left a warning on my talk page ending with “please try to temper your sense of injustice and remember that Wikipedia is a place where calm discussion achieves much, and angry posturing achieves nothing other than a speedy enforced exit.” As an afterthought, he came back to my talk page and removed the images, stating that “ WP:BLP applies in all namespaces. I find the images droll, but have removed them because apart from anything else the hair colour suggests they are taken a long time apart”. When I logged in, I did not immediately understand that this was a BLP violation and I must confess that I was slightly irritated to be lectured while the editor who had first suggested I was a Russian agent did not even get as much as a slap on the wrist. So, I reinstated the images. This resulted immediately in my indefinite block. I take full responsibility for this. However, I would like to stress that the pictures were placed by another editor. I did not particularly want to have them; I just found them droll, like JzG. Besides, in more than a month, no one ever complained about them. Concerning the issues raised in the comments, they can be summarized as 1) RIGHTGREATWRONGS, 2) POV, 3) my username. Here is my answer: I chose my username, an admittedly ill-advised choice, to make my purpose clear: free Wikipedia from dubious assertions that one can read in the media but which have no place in an encyclopedia. I never sought to “right great wrongs”. Instead, I have always strived to preserve Wikipedia’s neutrality and reliability. I have to stress that in all edits I made; my “POV” finally prevailed. I edited Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without encountering much opposition. However, I ran into trouble as soon as I started editing articles related to either Russia or Ukraine. I faced fierce opposition when I removed from Yulia Tymoshenko the false statement that the ECHR had recognized that she had been tortured. No one now disputes that I was right. Then in another article’s talk page (which I am not allowed to mention), I contended that we cannot use the fact that a journalist has been murdered on the birthday of a country’s ruler to insinuate that either he ordered the murder or it was a present for him. I was then accused for the first time to be paid by that country for editing. I admit that, after that, my comments were rather sarcastic and it resulted in a ban from the topic. However Drmies agreed with me and the innuendo is now removed. The last edit I made which ultimately resulted in my indefinite block was about RT (TV network). I edited away the assertion, made in a list of RT’s guests, that Nigel Farage was a “Putin’s admirer”. This started an enormous controversy on the article’s talk page which eventually led to my indefinite block. I have strictly no feeling about either Farage or Putin and it should be observed that, here too, my “POV” prevailed and “Putin’s admirer” has been removed. Drmies could confirm, having participated to the discussions about the last two articles I mention. My final point is that, while I have made mistakes, I have never tried to harm Wikipedia and I have committed only one incivility: calling someone a “crackpot”, but that was after being accused for the second time of being a Russian agent. I want to say that I have enjoyed the discussions I have had, even though they have sometimes been heated. I have never wished anyone ill and I have even liked some of the editors who oppose me. I bear them no grudge, but it saddens me to see that some of them want me out. I apologize for having been so long, but I wanted to give you a clear picture. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"I checked this link and was surprised by the title (Wikipedia Mouthpiece of the State Department) that was chosen by Againstdisinformation to start the thread. Why State Department? He did not explain. Is it somehow related to the worker from the State Department used as a target for his jokes, which has been the reason for his block by JzG? My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)"
"If you are going to unblock, Againstdisinformation should know if starting a discussion like that one ("a mouthpiece") would be regarded as disruption and result in block. That is what he usually does. This may not be outright forbidden by policies, but result in enormous waste of time for others. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)"
Since you kindly offered to place my posts on AN for me, since you don't seem to be so busy as to be unable to post and since I would like to show Iryna Harpy that, contrary to her misgivings, I don't assume bad faith on your part, could you be so kind as to post my reply? Here it is:
" My very best wishes apparently believes that I am somehow intent on making fun of Victoria Nuland. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my explanation: first, the images were placed on my talk page not by me, but by Toddy1. I am certain that she has nothing against Victoria Nuland but I suppose that, after a conversation we had on the subject, she wanted to illustrate the difference betweeen the way facts are presented and what they really are. I said it was funny and I did not remove the images because I thought it would be impolite towards Toddy1. After that I never even thought of the images again. Second, as mentioned by My very best wishes, I opened a section on RT (TV network) talk page entitled "Wikipedia mouthpiece of the State Department" because there is a section entitled "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" in the article and I wanted to attract attention on what seems to me to be inappropriate. Apparently, My very best wishes agrees with me, since he thinks that starting a section with "mouthpiece" deserves blocking. My concern was about the standards that should be maintained in an encyclopedia, which in my opinion should be higher than those of the press. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Victoria Nuland." Againstdisinformation ( talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
After discussing the issue with other admins and examining your edits, I decided to offer you conditional unblock. That does not mean that the reasons for which you were blocked are wrong. Those issues are real and important. So, you should not think of unblock as a proof of your innocence. On the contrary, I agree with other editors that your behavior was disruptive. Yet, I believe that you deserve a second chance to try to edit without those issues. If I (or any other admin) see that you continue with your old behavior, you will be blocked again. So, you'll have to accept those conditions in order to be unblocked:
Please, state your acceptance or refusal of those conditions below. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience and forgive me for the "wall of text". I hope that you will grant my request and understand that if I were to sacrifice my human dignity I could not be of any help to Wikipedia, nor to anyone else. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 22:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I find your name unneutral, you suggest that your opponents disinform. I have already asked you once and haven't obtained a serious answer. Xx236 ( talk) 06:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've declined your username change request to be renamed to "Castigat ridendo mores" because, after reading your talk page discussion, Castigat ridendo mores may not be an appropriate username to be renamed to because Castigat ridendo mores means "one corrects customs by laughing at them". Normally this username would be fine; however, based on how heated the discussion got above, and how your current, normally acceptable username was viewed as disruptive, I do not think your new username will be accepted as well. Please, pick a new name. — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 12:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The translation of "Castigat ridendo mores" found in Wikipedia is poor, but, admittedly, this phrase is difficult to translate, Latin being much more expressive than English. I would rather render it as "Correcting mores (perfectly good English word) through humour"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how AgainstDisinformation is arguing about the interpretation of the unblock conditions, if the conditions said they had to change their username, and they tried to, but the new username was also not accepted. I think that is an incorrect characterization of the behavior here. I think AgainstDisinformation tried to comply with the condition of changing their username, but didn't change it to "Flowers and Bunnies" or something, but instead something making another sort of statement of principles. I personally can understand this on an emotional level, and i just wanted to say that it's not true that they are arguing about the interpretation of the block conditions. This feels a bit controlling and i recognize that AgainstDisinformation appears to be the sort of person who rankles at the feeling of being controlled. I can understand this, as it is the principle of human behavior called counterwill, which actually has a very important social function of preventing undue hierarchy. SageRad ( talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
User Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, congratulations on the unblock. Now it is hard for me to type your name so i have to copy and paste it. But i like what it means. Anyway, i wish to offer my friendly advice from experience, that it is always best to refrain from imputing motives to people, as long as possible, unless it really becomes impossible to deny and then to ask them. I don't think that user Vanjagenije has a duty to protect you or to respond to accusations against you, although that part of the conditions is odd to me, where it says "If somebody else accuses use of any wrongdoing, you will not answer until you calm down and relax. If the accusation is baseless, you will not answer at all." Of course it's always good to calm down if you're upset, otherwise you'll use words you may regret later, and the more peaceful and calm of a response, the stronger you will be in the dialogue. However, if someone makes a baseless claim against you, i don't see why you couldn't just say "that's baseless" but the conditions do say that. If you need an advocate to speak because of this rule, give me a tap on the shoulder. If i agree that it's baseless i'll say that i think so, otherwise i'll see if i can figure out how to unravel whatever Gordian Knot has been tangled. Hopefully we all look out for each other, and always try to de-escalate and figure out the real roots of any conflict, and treat each other as humans with the most respect we can manage. SageRad ( talk) 20:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this comment and left a note on the IP user's talk page. It would be useful to know exactly what are your limitations of the block and how long those special limitations are to last. It seems hobbling to have specific conditions like that, especially if they are indefinite. Maybe it's the full moon night calling out the werewolves. SageRad ( talk) 23:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I always enjoy seeing greek in names. I learned greek auditing seminary classes long ago. But I wonder if the dative or genitive forms would have been better which would have translated as "to know yourself' or "knowing of yourself". Also the perfect tense would have been interesting, having known yourself, presently knowing yourself, and continuing to know yourself. AlbinoFerret 04:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Really, jumping right back into controversial topics, immediately after you got unblocked, is probably NOT a good idea. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."Truly, I have no more to say on any subject to you unless it's on an article's talk page. You've been given advice as to letting go, and I don't want to mull over what you fail to comprehend any longer. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Why does it bother me so much to see this section? Because it involves two editors who apparently have some history coming to the talk page of Γνῶθι σεαυτόν and putting the editor down, trying to cast them as a POV-pushing, personal-version-of-truth-verification-be-dammned sort of editor, and then complaining about "snarky comments" cherrypicked from somewhere, which is ironic... in other words, it seems like a couple of editors with a bone to pick coming here to pick on this editor. It's not kind and it's not conducive of peace and freedom to edit well. It's intended to have a chilling effect to come here and say "jumping back into controversial topics is probably NOT a good idea"... how can that be construed except to be intended to have a chilling effect on this editor's editing? The alphabet soup using "BATTLEGROUND" and "TRUTH" are common tropes for people with this sort of silencing intention. I've been subject to it, and seen it used on others, like right here. Note that if you actually read WP:TRUTH, you will see that it is against pushing things into articles that are not verified with reliable sources. What i have seen this editor do is actually to push for better adherence to sources and better discernment about what is a reliable source versus a POV pushing source. What i have seen in this editor's editing history that i've looked at on a few articles is decidedly on the side of Wikipedia's guidelines. These two editors coming here feels like picking on Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, on the bullying spectrum, with intentions to quiet an editor whose POV they disagree with, and includes insinuations of false charges. SageRad ( talk) 11:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Also interesting to note that the editor who opened this section here is the same editor whom i just noticed has added unsourced innuendo to an article while stating that "consensus is pretty clearly the other way" in the edit reason, whereas, i had prior created this talk page section to address the topic, clearly indicating that there is not consensus to keep that content in the article. I would ask any uninvolved observer to discern who is POV-pushing here, and what is the nature of this section om the talk page of Γνῶθι σεαυτόν is not to accomplish a chilling of the editor in question? I see bad things going on here, so let us make it obvious. SageRad ( talk) 12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν -- I've read most of the discussions above, and I'd just like to say a few things.
1) First, I'm sorry you chose a user name written in Greek. While the phrase is a good one, it is impossible for most English-speakers to read or say. I think it would have facilitated easier exchanges with you, and helped to foster a more collegial relationship with other editors, if you had chosen a name written in English and one that could be pronounced.
2) Second, it is clear from the quality of your writing that you are quite intelligent. You express yourself very well, and with virtually no errors. I think you have the potential to contribute a great deal to Wikipedia.
3) When you edit controversial topics, you have to expect some opposition to your edits and even to you. When discussing edits, it is important to stay calm, and make concisely written, reasoned replies, citing sources and WP policies. If you are having difficulty with edits, be patient. Other editors will join the discussion or revert edits when they come across them. You don't have to do everything yourself. If you proceed like this, you will become known as a constructive, level-headed editor, and you will get support for your opinions and good edits.
4) When experienced editors like Iryna Harpy and Drmies tell you things, you need to be quiet, carefully read what they have written, and think about it and your behavior, and not feel you have to respond to every one of their statements. I think you are trying to defend yourself too much. Even though you may feel like it sometimes, you are not on trial. If other editors add comments that you think are wrong, I suggest that you not even respond. Your statements, above, in which you clearly explain what happened, are fine, but just say them once. There is no need to repeat yourself. Your record as an editor should speak for itself and is actually your best defense, if one is needed. Good luck with your future editing! Corinne ( talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
1) I shared your concern in the beginning. You are certaily aware that my first username was "Againstdisinformation" and that I had to change it because it "irritated" some editors. My new choice was "Castigat ridendo mores", which can certainly be read by most English-speakers. My request was declined. Unwilling to choose a username like "Bunny and flowers", I settled for the Delphic precept. I now think that it is not such a bad choice, it is like a seal. People need not be able to read it. Also, it might encourage the editors who do not know what it means to look it up in Wikipedia
2) Thank you very much. If I make any error, which will no doubt happen, please have the kindness to point it out to me.
3) If all editors had the same gentle manner as you do, there would never have been any problem. I am used to heated, but courteous, debates in circles where no one would even dream of calling me by the names I have been called here. I shall have to adapt to the real world outside my ivory tower.
4) I hold Drmies in high regard and I have always read what he writes with great attention. Iryna Harpy, while probably well meaning, often addresses me in an overbearing tone and manner, using a language cluttered with wiki-jargon; this has the unintended effect of ruffling my feathers. I have also been saddened to see the amount of energy she deployed to keep me blocked. However, I bear her no grudge. Finally, you are right, I tend to defend myself too much. Even in circumstances where I know it would be wiser to keep quiet.
Thank you again for your comments. You will always be welcome on my talk page. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ( talk) 16:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, you pinged me two times on talk page of RT TV and asked questions. I can not answer these questions on article talk page because the banner on the page tells: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RT (TV network) article.", and your questions I think were not about improvement of the page, but I can reply here. So, do you want me to answer here or just go away and do not answer? My very best wishes ( talk) 14:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
OK, we've explained our policies on living people, and you very clearly don't give a damn. Game over. I have blocked you and revoked talk page access to prevent you reinstating the pictures. Guy ( Help!) 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why do you believe you should be unblocked? I was blocked at 09:32, 6 October 2015?by JzG for reinstating 2 pictures of a public figure he removed from my talk page. I recognize now that my reaction was ill-advised and I should have asked an explanation before. My only defense is that the pictures were placed on my talk page by another user: "I love the contrast between what she really looks like, and what she looks like in the Wikipedia infobox photo.-- Toddy1 (talk) 4:44 pm, 5 September 2015, Saturday (2 months, 19 days ago) (UTC+2)" I left the pictures on my talk page because I found them funny and I had no idea that it was againstWP:BLP since in over a month no one visiting my talk page (including administrators) ever complained. After reading carefully WP:BLP, I now realize that I should have removed them instantly. My violation was not willful and, if you unblock me, I can guarantee that, in the future, I will be very vigilant in ensuring that I am not in violation of WP:BLP, nor of any other WP policy for that matter. JzG also mentioned that my username was objectionable, and I agree to change it as soon as I am unblocked.
If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Science, ancient Greece, current affairs
Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I am currently blocked for a violation of WP:BLP, which I fully recognize, but was not aware of at the time (2 pictures of a public figure on my talk page). My sense of humor and derision has also earned me a bad name. JzG visited my talk page to warn me after I made the comment "I won't accuse him of working for the CIA. Even though their standards of recruitment are not very high, I don't think they have sunken so low as to hire any paranoid crackpot who has fallen prey to conspiracy theories." in response to Trappedinburnley who had written: "your previous posts have made me think you likely work (directly or indirectly) for RT". I recognize this is beyond the pale and I will not do it again. I tend to be sarcastic when I am under attack, a behavior I will try to rein in.
— Againstdisinformation, originally in UTRS appeal #{{{1}}}
Accept reason:
This unblock request is accepted, but under conditions laid dosn below [1]. Againstdisinformation, please understand that this is a WP:LASTCHANCE unblock. If you continue any kind of irritating behavior that led to this block, you will be blocked again. You already started to display some mild signs of that behavior, even before being unblocked, so take care. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for heeding my appeal Vanjagenije. I think it would be more proper to let JzG answer to you himself but, since other editors have made comments, I will give you my interpretation. Following an exchange between an editor and me on RT (TV network), where he suggested that I was working for the Russian Government and I replied that he was a crackpot, Drmies asked JzG to “swing (your) cudgel around a little bit, just for show.” He subsequently left a warning on my talk page ending with “please try to temper your sense of injustice and remember that Wikipedia is a place where calm discussion achieves much, and angry posturing achieves nothing other than a speedy enforced exit.” As an afterthought, he came back to my talk page and removed the images, stating that “ WP:BLP applies in all namespaces. I find the images droll, but have removed them because apart from anything else the hair colour suggests they are taken a long time apart”. When I logged in, I did not immediately understand that this was a BLP violation and I must confess that I was slightly irritated to be lectured while the editor who had first suggested I was a Russian agent did not even get as much as a slap on the wrist. So, I reinstated the images. This resulted immediately in my indefinite block. I take full responsibility for this. However, I would like to stress that the pictures were placed by another editor. I did not particularly want to have them; I just found them droll, like JzG. Besides, in more than a month, no one ever complained about them. Concerning the issues raised in the comments, they can be summarized as 1) RIGHTGREATWRONGS, 2) POV, 3) my username. Here is my answer: I chose my username, an admittedly ill-advised choice, to make my purpose clear: free Wikipedia from dubious assertions that one can read in the media but which have no place in an encyclopedia. I never sought to “right great wrongs”. Instead, I have always strived to preserve Wikipedia’s neutrality and reliability. I have to stress that in all edits I made; my “POV” finally prevailed. I edited Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without encountering much opposition. However, I ran into trouble as soon as I started editing articles related to either Russia or Ukraine. I faced fierce opposition when I removed from Yulia Tymoshenko the false statement that the ECHR had recognized that she had been tortured. No one now disputes that I was right. Then in another article’s talk page (which I am not allowed to mention), I contended that we cannot use the fact that a journalist has been murdered on the birthday of a country’s ruler to insinuate that either he ordered the murder or it was a present for him. I was then accused for the first time to be paid by that country for editing. I admit that, after that, my comments were rather sarcastic and it resulted in a ban from the topic. However Drmies agreed with me and the innuendo is now removed. The last edit I made which ultimately resulted in my indefinite block was about RT (TV network). I edited away the assertion, made in a list of RT’s guests, that Nigel Farage was a “Putin’s admirer”. This started an enormous controversy on the article’s talk page which eventually led to my indefinite block. I have strictly no feeling about either Farage or Putin and it should be observed that, here too, my “POV” prevailed and “Putin’s admirer” has been removed. Drmies could confirm, having participated to the discussions about the last two articles I mention. My final point is that, while I have made mistakes, I have never tried to harm Wikipedia and I have committed only one incivility: calling someone a “crackpot”, but that was after being accused for the second time of being a Russian agent. I want to say that I have enjoyed the discussions I have had, even though they have sometimes been heated. I have never wished anyone ill and I have even liked some of the editors who oppose me. I bear them no grudge, but it saddens me to see that some of them want me out. I apologize for having been so long, but I wanted to give you a clear picture. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"I checked this link and was surprised by the title (Wikipedia Mouthpiece of the State Department) that was chosen by Againstdisinformation to start the thread. Why State Department? He did not explain. Is it somehow related to the worker from the State Department used as a target for his jokes, which has been the reason for his block by JzG? My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)"
"If you are going to unblock, Againstdisinformation should know if starting a discussion like that one ("a mouthpiece") would be regarded as disruption and result in block. That is what he usually does. This may not be outright forbidden by policies, but result in enormous waste of time for others. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)"
Since you kindly offered to place my posts on AN for me, since you don't seem to be so busy as to be unable to post and since I would like to show Iryna Harpy that, contrary to her misgivings, I don't assume bad faith on your part, could you be so kind as to post my reply? Here it is:
" My very best wishes apparently believes that I am somehow intent on making fun of Victoria Nuland. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my explanation: first, the images were placed on my talk page not by me, but by Toddy1. I am certain that she has nothing against Victoria Nuland but I suppose that, after a conversation we had on the subject, she wanted to illustrate the difference betweeen the way facts are presented and what they really are. I said it was funny and I did not remove the images because I thought it would be impolite towards Toddy1. After that I never even thought of the images again. Second, as mentioned by My very best wishes, I opened a section on RT (TV network) talk page entitled "Wikipedia mouthpiece of the State Department" because there is a section entitled "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" in the article and I wanted to attract attention on what seems to me to be inappropriate. Apparently, My very best wishes agrees with me, since he thinks that starting a section with "mouthpiece" deserves blocking. My concern was about the standards that should be maintained in an encyclopedia, which in my opinion should be higher than those of the press. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Victoria Nuland." Againstdisinformation ( talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
After discussing the issue with other admins and examining your edits, I decided to offer you conditional unblock. That does not mean that the reasons for which you were blocked are wrong. Those issues are real and important. So, you should not think of unblock as a proof of your innocence. On the contrary, I agree with other editors that your behavior was disruptive. Yet, I believe that you deserve a second chance to try to edit without those issues. If I (or any other admin) see that you continue with your old behavior, you will be blocked again. So, you'll have to accept those conditions in order to be unblocked:
Please, state your acceptance or refusal of those conditions below. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience and forgive me for the "wall of text". I hope that you will grant my request and understand that if I were to sacrifice my human dignity I could not be of any help to Wikipedia, nor to anyone else. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 22:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I find your name unneutral, you suggest that your opponents disinform. I have already asked you once and haven't obtained a serious answer. Xx236 ( talk) 06:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've declined your username change request to be renamed to "Castigat ridendo mores" because, after reading your talk page discussion, Castigat ridendo mores may not be an appropriate username to be renamed to because Castigat ridendo mores means "one corrects customs by laughing at them". Normally this username would be fine; however, based on how heated the discussion got above, and how your current, normally acceptable username was viewed as disruptive, I do not think your new username will be accepted as well. Please, pick a new name. — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 12:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The translation of "Castigat ridendo mores" found in Wikipedia is poor, but, admittedly, this phrase is difficult to translate, Latin being much more expressive than English. I would rather render it as "Correcting mores (perfectly good English word) through humour"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how AgainstDisinformation is arguing about the interpretation of the unblock conditions, if the conditions said they had to change their username, and they tried to, but the new username was also not accepted. I think that is an incorrect characterization of the behavior here. I think AgainstDisinformation tried to comply with the condition of changing their username, but didn't change it to "Flowers and Bunnies" or something, but instead something making another sort of statement of principles. I personally can understand this on an emotional level, and i just wanted to say that it's not true that they are arguing about the interpretation of the block conditions. This feels a bit controlling and i recognize that AgainstDisinformation appears to be the sort of person who rankles at the feeling of being controlled. I can understand this, as it is the principle of human behavior called counterwill, which actually has a very important social function of preventing undue hierarchy. SageRad ( talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
User Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, congratulations on the unblock. Now it is hard for me to type your name so i have to copy and paste it. But i like what it means. Anyway, i wish to offer my friendly advice from experience, that it is always best to refrain from imputing motives to people, as long as possible, unless it really becomes impossible to deny and then to ask them. I don't think that user Vanjagenije has a duty to protect you or to respond to accusations against you, although that part of the conditions is odd to me, where it says "If somebody else accuses use of any wrongdoing, you will not answer until you calm down and relax. If the accusation is baseless, you will not answer at all." Of course it's always good to calm down if you're upset, otherwise you'll use words you may regret later, and the more peaceful and calm of a response, the stronger you will be in the dialogue. However, if someone makes a baseless claim against you, i don't see why you couldn't just say "that's baseless" but the conditions do say that. If you need an advocate to speak because of this rule, give me a tap on the shoulder. If i agree that it's baseless i'll say that i think so, otherwise i'll see if i can figure out how to unravel whatever Gordian Knot has been tangled. Hopefully we all look out for each other, and always try to de-escalate and figure out the real roots of any conflict, and treat each other as humans with the most respect we can manage. SageRad ( talk) 20:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this comment and left a note on the IP user's talk page. It would be useful to know exactly what are your limitations of the block and how long those special limitations are to last. It seems hobbling to have specific conditions like that, especially if they are indefinite. Maybe it's the full moon night calling out the werewolves. SageRad ( talk) 23:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I always enjoy seeing greek in names. I learned greek auditing seminary classes long ago. But I wonder if the dative or genitive forms would have been better which would have translated as "to know yourself' or "knowing of yourself". Also the perfect tense would have been interesting, having known yourself, presently knowing yourself, and continuing to know yourself. AlbinoFerret 04:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Really, jumping right back into controversial topics, immediately after you got unblocked, is probably NOT a good idea. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."Truly, I have no more to say on any subject to you unless it's on an article's talk page. You've been given advice as to letting go, and I don't want to mull over what you fail to comprehend any longer. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Why does it bother me so much to see this section? Because it involves two editors who apparently have some history coming to the talk page of Γνῶθι σεαυτόν and putting the editor down, trying to cast them as a POV-pushing, personal-version-of-truth-verification-be-dammned sort of editor, and then complaining about "snarky comments" cherrypicked from somewhere, which is ironic... in other words, it seems like a couple of editors with a bone to pick coming here to pick on this editor. It's not kind and it's not conducive of peace and freedom to edit well. It's intended to have a chilling effect to come here and say "jumping back into controversial topics is probably NOT a good idea"... how can that be construed except to be intended to have a chilling effect on this editor's editing? The alphabet soup using "BATTLEGROUND" and "TRUTH" are common tropes for people with this sort of silencing intention. I've been subject to it, and seen it used on others, like right here. Note that if you actually read WP:TRUTH, you will see that it is against pushing things into articles that are not verified with reliable sources. What i have seen this editor do is actually to push for better adherence to sources and better discernment about what is a reliable source versus a POV pushing source. What i have seen in this editor's editing history that i've looked at on a few articles is decidedly on the side of Wikipedia's guidelines. These two editors coming here feels like picking on Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, on the bullying spectrum, with intentions to quiet an editor whose POV they disagree with, and includes insinuations of false charges. SageRad ( talk) 11:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Also interesting to note that the editor who opened this section here is the same editor whom i just noticed has added unsourced innuendo to an article while stating that "consensus is pretty clearly the other way" in the edit reason, whereas, i had prior created this talk page section to address the topic, clearly indicating that there is not consensus to keep that content in the article. I would ask any uninvolved observer to discern who is POV-pushing here, and what is the nature of this section om the talk page of Γνῶθι σεαυτόν is not to accomplish a chilling of the editor in question? I see bad things going on here, so let us make it obvious. SageRad ( talk) 12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν -- I've read most of the discussions above, and I'd just like to say a few things.
1) First, I'm sorry you chose a user name written in Greek. While the phrase is a good one, it is impossible for most English-speakers to read or say. I think it would have facilitated easier exchanges with you, and helped to foster a more collegial relationship with other editors, if you had chosen a name written in English and one that could be pronounced.
2) Second, it is clear from the quality of your writing that you are quite intelligent. You express yourself very well, and with virtually no errors. I think you have the potential to contribute a great deal to Wikipedia.
3) When you edit controversial topics, you have to expect some opposition to your edits and even to you. When discussing edits, it is important to stay calm, and make concisely written, reasoned replies, citing sources and WP policies. If you are having difficulty with edits, be patient. Other editors will join the discussion or revert edits when they come across them. You don't have to do everything yourself. If you proceed like this, you will become known as a constructive, level-headed editor, and you will get support for your opinions and good edits.
4) When experienced editors like Iryna Harpy and Drmies tell you things, you need to be quiet, carefully read what they have written, and think about it and your behavior, and not feel you have to respond to every one of their statements. I think you are trying to defend yourself too much. Even though you may feel like it sometimes, you are not on trial. If other editors add comments that you think are wrong, I suggest that you not even respond. Your statements, above, in which you clearly explain what happened, are fine, but just say them once. There is no need to repeat yourself. Your record as an editor should speak for itself and is actually your best defense, if one is needed. Good luck with your future editing! Corinne ( talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
1) I shared your concern in the beginning. You are certaily aware that my first username was "Againstdisinformation" and that I had to change it because it "irritated" some editors. My new choice was "Castigat ridendo mores", which can certainly be read by most English-speakers. My request was declined. Unwilling to choose a username like "Bunny and flowers", I settled for the Delphic precept. I now think that it is not such a bad choice, it is like a seal. People need not be able to read it. Also, it might encourage the editors who do not know what it means to look it up in Wikipedia
2) Thank you very much. If I make any error, which will no doubt happen, please have the kindness to point it out to me.
3) If all editors had the same gentle manner as you do, there would never have been any problem. I am used to heated, but courteous, debates in circles where no one would even dream of calling me by the names I have been called here. I shall have to adapt to the real world outside my ivory tower.
4) I hold Drmies in high regard and I have always read what he writes with great attention. Iryna Harpy, while probably well meaning, often addresses me in an overbearing tone and manner, using a language cluttered with wiki-jargon; this has the unintended effect of ruffling my feathers. I have also been saddened to see the amount of energy she deployed to keep me blocked. However, I bear her no grudge. Finally, you are right, I tend to defend myself too much. Even in circumstances where I know it would be wiser to keep quiet.
Thank you again for your comments. You will always be welcome on my talk page. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ( talk) 16:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, you pinged me two times on talk page of RT TV and asked questions. I can not answer these questions on article talk page because the banner on the page tells: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RT (TV network) article.", and your questions I think were not about improvement of the page, but I can reply here. So, do you want me to answer here or just go away and do not answer? My very best wishes ( talk) 14:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |