Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
True North Centre for Public Policy. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd like to understand exactly what I did to warrant a block? The user Fred Zepelin is not acting in good faith and I think that is fairly obvious. The user has been hounding me WP:HOUND 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 User_talk:Fred_Zepelin, 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 Wikipedia 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 by dogpiling and using meatpuppets ( WP:MEAT) 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. Smefs ( talk) 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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. 331dot ( talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Final warning. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 00:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That you do not see insults as a form of personal attack precludes unblocking you. You made other personal attacks in unblock requests, including UTRS appeal #88346 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, -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 08:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Deepfriedokra: @ Acroterion: seems likely to me that the editor evaded their block with this edit 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 is strong. Apparently checkuser is not allowed to link accounts and IP addresses, which I learned when I requested one. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 18:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Deepfriedokra: @ Acroterion: Fresh off their one-week block, Smefs has returned to edit-war on an edit that I made to Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War after I found a secondary source for a section. Twice, so far. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 21:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Fred Zepelin (
talk)
20:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 removed reliable, documented links to the articles of said massacres. This is clear violation of Wikipedia's [ policy against whitewashing.] 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 Wikipedia 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. Smefs ( talk) 22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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 your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Smefs ( talk) 22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.What you said is clearly covered. What you're linking to as a "policy against whitewashing" is clearly labeled
This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 editors have gotten in the way of that. It will not happen again. Thank you. Smefs ( talk) 03:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:GAB suggests that an appeal should demonstrate an understanding of the problem such that a repeat seems unlikely. The report is in this ANI archive. The problem is not so much the attack ( diff) as the inability to understand how it might be a problem. For example, read the request above. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Johnuniq: 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," 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. Smefs ( talk) 14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 significant evidence in previous replies, but here's a comprehensive list of diffs showing conclusively that this user was harassing and hounding me: This was the initial contact between me and the offending user. We proceeded to have an edit war, finally a page on the talk page was created to which the response was mixed between whether I or the offending user was correct. I stopped responding in order to WP:DENY, 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, Hin Bredendieck, 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 lied 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 ( https://www.sscartcenter.org/about-us/). He would then continue to restore old, outdated revisions (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 stating that Bredendieck was taught by Josef Albers, (only for this one student! How curious!), repeatedly orphaned the article, etc. He undid my edit on the George Bridges article, then Martin Sellner, even on my edit to the Carls Jr. page, lol., 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: one, two, three. 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 discounting a reliable source describing an actual massacre in the Rhodesian Bush War? 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. Smefs ( talk) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Smefs ( talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's impossible to edit collaboratively when you just say everyone is a sockpuppet. Talk page access removed. See below for options. Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
True North Centre for Public Policy. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd like to understand exactly what I did to warrant a block? The user Fred Zepelin is not acting in good faith and I think that is fairly obvious. The user has been hounding me WP:HOUND 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 User_talk:Fred_Zepelin, 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 Wikipedia 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 by dogpiling and using meatpuppets ( WP:MEAT) 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. Smefs ( talk) 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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. 331dot ( talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Final warning. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 00:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That you do not see insults as a form of personal attack precludes unblocking you. You made other personal attacks in unblock requests, including UTRS appeal #88346 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, -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 08:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Deepfriedokra: @ Acroterion: seems likely to me that the editor evaded their block with this edit 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 is strong. Apparently checkuser is not allowed to link accounts and IP addresses, which I learned when I requested one. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 18:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Deepfriedokra: @ Acroterion: Fresh off their one-week block, Smefs has returned to edit-war on an edit that I made to Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War after I found a secondary source for a section. Twice, so far. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 21:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Fred Zepelin (
talk)
20:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 removed reliable, documented links to the articles of said massacres. This is clear violation of Wikipedia's [ policy against whitewashing.] 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 Wikipedia 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. Smefs ( talk) 22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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 your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Smefs ( talk) 22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.What you said is clearly covered. What you're linking to as a "policy against whitewashing" is clearly labeled
This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 editors have gotten in the way of that. It will not happen again. Thank you. Smefs ( talk) 03:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:GAB suggests that an appeal should demonstrate an understanding of the problem such that a repeat seems unlikely. The report is in this ANI archive. The problem is not so much the attack ( diff) as the inability to understand how it might be a problem. For example, read the request above. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Johnuniq: 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," 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. Smefs ( talk) 14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Smefs ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 significant evidence in previous replies, but here's a comprehensive list of diffs showing conclusively that this user was harassing and hounding me: This was the initial contact between me and the offending user. We proceeded to have an edit war, finally a page on the talk page was created to which the response was mixed between whether I or the offending user was correct. I stopped responding in order to WP:DENY, 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, Hin Bredendieck, 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 lied 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 ( https://www.sscartcenter.org/about-us/). He would then continue to restore old, outdated revisions (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 stating that Bredendieck was taught by Josef Albers, (only for this one student! How curious!), repeatedly orphaned the article, etc. He undid my edit on the George Bridges article, then Martin Sellner, even on my edit to the Carls Jr. page, lol., 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: one, two, three. 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 discounting a reliable source describing an actual massacre in the Rhodesian Bush War? 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. Smefs ( talk) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Smefs ( talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's impossible to edit collaboratively when you just say everyone is a sockpuppet. Talk page access removed. See below for options. Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.