User talk:Γνῶθι σεαυτόν

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Since you returned after the block expired and continued to do exactly the same as for what you were blocked, I blocked you again.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I edited the article RT (02:08, 5 August 2015) and was reverted by Volunteer Marek with the comment 'looks like OR'. Convinced that I was right I reinstated my edit and was blocked 3 mn later by Materialscientist for 12h. The substance of my edit was to replace 'Russian officials', a formulation I found vague, by 'a former Soviet KGB officer who defected to the West', which is the exact formulation appearing in the source cited, because it appeared to me that the wording of the article was inaccurate (a plural is not the same as a singular and the Russian Federation is not the USSR. Ironically, the very formulation I used is found further down in the Criticism section). I discussed all this on Materialscientist's talk page and he finally wrote 'Many problems start when new editors make significant changes without an adequate edit summary (they often spent pages post-factum justifyingnot their edit, this is one of those cases). There is no use beating a dead horse' See his talk page: 89. 'No Reply to an honest request of clarification'. After that, I thought I was entitled to edit the page again and this time I added a summary but was nevertheless blocked by Ymblanter for 48h without any warning and no other explanation than 'you did the same' I would hate to sound strident, but this way of dealing with new editors does not seem to me to be compliant with WP blocking policy and, if I may say so, is less than constructive.Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block expired. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2015 (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 do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Human rights in the United States. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:I never intended to add "commentary or my own personal analysis". I just tried to add what I felt were relevant historical facts, and I provided a reliable source. I fail to see what it is that you see that I am doing. This seems to suggest a malicious intention which, I assure you, is not there. Were you to explain to me convincingly why my edit is improper, I would revert it immediately. Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Trying to equate "waterboarding" - an exercise we perform on our own troops in training - with the systematic starvation, torture, and execution of American POW's in Japanese hands in World War II is disingenuous at best. It reeks of anti-American POV. Couple that with previous encounters, and I see an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by an editor with a POV username. Scr★pIron^IV 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Please let us calm down, avoid personal attacks and stick to facts. I have no wish to get into an argument with you, especially since I like your work and I already thanked you for an edit (could this be the previous encounter you are alluding to?). You say that I am anti-American. Don't take offence, but this borders on paranoia. America is the only nation to use such a concept, and most Americans have no idea of when and why it originated. Could one be anti-Greek? I am not anti-American, but I feel it is more legitimate to point out the defects of one's own culture rather than to point out those of a foreign one. I could be endlessly ranting against North Korea, but what would be the point? As for my username, it was indeed a mistake which made me vulnerable to attacks such as yours. But, what to do now? In my naivety, I adopted it because my goal was to try and correct numerous unsubstantiated claims which, in my opinion, are detrimental to the Wikipedia Project. I started with the Ukrainian conflict and tried to correct instances of what I feel is an exaggerated bias against Russia. Phrases like "the invading Russian Armed Forces" made without providing any reference, for instance. As a result, my account was blocked. As concerns the Japanese war crimes, I don't in the least want to equate them with the actions of the Bush administration. But, since Dick Cheney and others maintained that waterboarding was not torture I feel that it is very relevant to point out that Japanese soldiers were hanged for doing just that. It may be embarrassing, but it is a historical fact. One does not help her or his country by pushing all the embarrassing facts under the rug. If you think waterboarding is not torture but just an other exercise used in training the troops, I suggest you try it on yourself as Christopher Hitchens did. Even though he was a staunch Bush supporter, he had to concede that it was torture of the worst kind. I hope you understand my position and see that it is in fact the opposite of my alleged anti-Americanism. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, in my brusqueness (I do tend to be terse) I conveyed my concern with the nature of the content in such a way as to make it easily confused with a concern over your personal beliefs. I did not mean to say that you are anti-American, but that what that edit communicates is an anti-American POV. In no way is waterboarding on the same level as tying a soldier to a tree and disemboweling him for sport, nor is it the same as practicing beheading with a katana on soldiers on a forced march who stop for a drink. I am not going to argue the merits of what have been described as "enhanced interrogation techniques." The edit appeared - the way I read it - to be saying that Americans were hypocritical for the prosecution of Japanese war criminals (who systematically burned, starved, whipped, otherwise tortured, and executed soldiers and civialians of many nations) by calling their actions "akin to waterboarding." So, no, I don't hold anything against you, but I believe the choice of wording was poor at best. Our prior interactions (from memory) were perfectly civil. I do believe that my reversion was warranted, and if my edit summary is of concern, chalk it up to the anticipation of escalation from one thought, to the next. But, really, it was only, "I see what you did there" - meaning, that a certain POV appeared on the horizon. Fair enough? Scr★pIron^IV 20:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:Thank you for your quick reply, I couldn't match it. No harm done, of course. I am sure our interactions in the future will always be civil and, I hope, even friendly. I completely agree that drawing a parallel between the war crimes committed by the Japanese soldiers during World War II and the reprehensible actions of the Bush administration is unacceptable. But this is not at all what I had in mind. I never enternained for one second the thought that "Americans were hypocritical for the prosecution of Japanese war criminals". However, I am certain that Dick Cheney was hypocritical when he maintained that waterboarding is not torture, knowing perfectly well that Japanese soldiers were hanged for doing just that. Now, the reason I changed the formulation was not POV-pushing. I did it because it is exactly what the source says. Please, look up the source, you will find it at the beginning of the section "Japanese Prosecutions for Waterboarding". Sen. McCain, who can hardly be portrayed as anti-American (even though, in my opinion, he is not doing America a service) stated on November 29, 2007 in St. Petersburg, Florida that "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding." This, of course, prompted a lot of research and this particular claim of his is now an established fact. I have another request that, I hope, you will consider. To the ears of people whose family has been persecuted by the Nazis, the expression "enhanced interrogation techniques" sounds particularly unfortunate, since it is the almost exact translation of the German expression "Verschärfte Vernehmung" used by the Gestapo as a euphemism for torture. If you read the source and agree with me that I only used the formulation found there and if also you think it is proper, please have the kindness to revert your changes. As for me, I will always appreciate your point of view on any matter. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you for reminding me, I had completely forgotten since I have been raising much more important issues on the article talk page.

@ScrapIronIV: Concerning the article "Human rights in the United States", do you have any objection to my restoring the formulation found in the source?

I object in the strongest possible terms. The statement in the source lends undue WP:WEIGHT by making such a comparison; it is slanted, biased, and has no place in the article. Scr★pIron^IV 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: I have to disagree with your analysis, which could equally have been made by Dick Cheney. In an interview, he was asked by Chuck Todd if Japanese soldiers were prosecuted in World War II for waterboarding. He replied "For a lot of stuff. Not for waterboarding." Unfortunately, this is wrong. It reveals either his ignorance or his bad faith. No one denies that Japanese soldiers were rightly condemned for doing even far worse things than waterboarding. The fact remains that some were prosecuted for doing just that (see the cases of Asano, Hata and Kita). Cheney strongly objected to "drawing some kind of moral equivalent" between the actions of Japan during World War II and those of the Bush administration. This is transparently disingenuous. No one ever tried to do that. Chuck Todd only wanted to point out how hypocritical it was for Cheney to say that waterboarding is not torture and is legal when American judges have consistently deemed otherwise. The Japanese soldiers are incidental, any other instance would have been just as good. Now, truncated as you left it, the sentence has certainly no place in the article. It just asserts that, at the end of World War II, Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for torture. So what? What is the relevance to the practice of waterboarding by the Bush administration. In contrast, if you leave the fact that people (never mind that they were Japanese) heve been condemned by American judges for it, then it becomes clearly relevant. If you think I am wrong, please let me know why.

Pulling out three examples - out of hundreds of prosecutions for war crimes - that included some form of "water torture" in addition to other war crimes is biased and lends undue weight to to this issue. That's all that needs to be said on the matter; it does not belong in the article.

@ScrapIronIV:I am sorry, but you don't get the point. The Japanese soldiers are totally irrelevant to the issue. You may have personal resons for harboring such strong feelings about Japanese war crimes, which indeed were heinous, and I can understand you. However, in building an encyclopedia we should strive to be as levelheaded as possible and forget our feelings. The problem we have to solve is the following: the title of the section is "Enhanced interrogation and waterboarding" and the last sentence, as you left it reads: "After World War II, an "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" was set up to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps". Don't you see that this is nonsensical. What does the fact that Japanese soldiers were convicted for torture have to do with the legality of waterboarding? So, either you remove the sentence altogether or you change the formulation. You can say that jurisprudence supports the claim that waterboarding is torture, without any mention of the Japanese, I wouldn't mind. But, for the sake of coherence you can't leave the sentence as it is. Since I would hate to give you the impression that I am seeking a confrontation with you, I leave it to you to find the best option. However, I cannot accept the sentence to remain as it is, it just makes Wikipedia look incoherent. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The first fact that you need to consider is that several times you have stated that Japanese soldiers were hanged for waterboarding. That is not supported by the source. The source specifies incarceration, none of those were hanged. Second, you chide me for using a particular phrase, which you use in turn. Third, I have strong feelings about all war crimes. Feel free to remove the whole Japanese war crimes red herring. Scr★pIron^IV 13:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:OK for Putin, however WP:CLAIM states that "Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true" so, if you don't object, I'll restore "told", which is what you find in the source anyway.Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My preference is always for some variant on 'said'. It doesn't make for exciting reading, but that isn't the point of an encyclopaedia.

While I'm about it, could I remind you not to use article talk pages for grieving. It makes for a toxic editing environment, and doesn't reflect well on you. Communications on that level are bound to responded to in kind, and are only conducive to an escalation in tension between editors. Once personal animosities are introduced its very difficult to undo them. Collaboration doesn't mean that everyone agrees with each other, much less that they necessarily agree with what RS have to say on issues, just that we all work together as civilly as possible in order to best present the relevant content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I like humour and I tend to have an ironic, even sarcastic tone, but I have never thought I could be perceived as grieving. It would even be more disturbing if I gave the impression of entertaining animosity towards any editor. Could you please let me know the article talk page you are alluding to? I confess to feeling disappointed (though not grieving) about one thing. The core issue that started this whole string of discussions was never addressed by any of the editors who disagreed with me and reverted (even blocked) me multiple times (Volunteer Marek, Materialscientist, Ymblanter and yourself). Why is the formulation "former Russian officials", which you can find in the lead of the article RT, so superior to "a former KGB officer", which is the one you find in the referenced source, and whith which it is at odds? Will you have the kindness to clarify this point for me? Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:No answer? Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: At least, this time, you did not block me pure and simple for not toeing the line. I think some clarification on my part is in order. As my (unfortunate) choice of username indicates, I decided to become an editor in order to contribute to free Wikipedia from what I perceive to be bias. I hope this is an aim to which no one can object. With this aim in mind, I chose what I felt to be the subject most likely to generate partisan presentations. Obviously, the deteriorating relation between Russia and NATO looms large in this context, therefore I decided to start with this. I would like to stress as strongly as possible that I have no links whatsoever with Eastern Europe in general and Russia in particular, nor am I "dedicated to the RT generation", to quote user Iryna Harpy. My edits have always been minor and aimed at softening what I feel is obvious bias, like adding "alleged" as a qualifier to "Russian invasion" or "told" instead of "revealed" (in accordance with WP:CLAIM) for instance. As a consequence, I was almost instantly reverted by "multiple users". It turns out that these multiple users form part of a small group (Volunteer Marek, Ymblanter, Santilak, Iryna Harpy). These users nurture strong feelings about Ukraine and Russia and have either Russian or Ukrainian as a first language. In my opinion, this casts a doubt on their neutrality on issues like RT or the Ukrainian crisis. One can fairly argue that there is a conflict of interest. I asked many times these "multiple users" to have the kindness to explain to me what they thought was the matter with my edits. Unfortunately, they shunned my questions. All I received (including from you) was a general scolding for breaching the manual of style and a deluge of references to the said manual. However I am an optimist, so that I hope you will explain to me your last revert. How can "has claimed to have been told by RT journalists" be less neutral than "reported that RT journalists had revealed", especially in the light of what WP:AVOID says about its use? Sorry for having been so verbose. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find increasingly difficult to believe you are a new user. Just in the unlikely case you are, you have already been blocked and told several times that edit-warring is not an acceptable avenue of dispute resolution. May be it is time to figure out what the acceptable avenues are. WP:Dispute resolution should help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:Your answer perfectly illustrates my point. You do not address the issue. Instead, you accuse me of edit warring and reiterate your unsubstantiated and false accusations against me. For my part, I would prefer to work collaboratively. So, once again, could you tell me why you think "told" is less appropriate than "revealed" which, according to WP:CLAIM should be used with extra care? Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And your answer illustrates mine. I do not have problems with told vs revealed. I do have problems though with claimed vs reported. Claimed is loaded; reported is not. And, well, repeated addition of the same text after it has been removed by other users, is edit warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:'reported' is loaded too. How about "According to a 2010 report by 'The Independent', RT journalists have said that coverage..."? This seems to me to be a neutral formulation. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any difference, but your version would be fine for me either.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your name

Your name User:Againstdisinformation suggests that you are against any disinformation. It's apparently not the case, so you use this name to promote your agenda. Would you be so kind to change your name to a neutral one?Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)