User talk:Smefs

April 2024

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.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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)[reply]

Hi Fred,

I appreciate your concern, but neither of my edits meet the criteria of being considered "disruptive" so I will be adding them back. My first edit simply changed the text to match the information in the provided source. My second edit removed information totally irrelevant to the section it was in. This is fairly obvious and not really up for debate, so I don't see why a snarky talk page comment is necessary. Thanks anyway. Smefs (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Have you already forgotten this? [1]? Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I commented on that in my original appeal. Please respond to it.Smefs (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's your answer. And I will remove talkpage access if you do anything like that again. Attacks on other editors are not considered in unblock requests. Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)[reply]

Nutter

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)[reply]

Actually,it was me. And I too regret that the block isn't longer, but I will leave it as is is and offer Smefs the opportunity to change their behavior, with this warning: any recurrence of attacks on other editors will result in an indefinite block. Please take us seriously in this, personal umbrage at being disagreed with doesn't justify your behavior, and we won't allow you to edit this collaborative encyclopedia project if you keep on behaving as if other editors are enemies. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

@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)[reply]

That's pretty old (three days) and a one-off. I'll let it ride. @Smefs: If that was you, you are playing with fire. Careful lest you burn yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back and edit warring again

@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)[reply]

@Fred Zepelin: If they exceed three reverts in 24 hours, you might want to report at WP:EWN. @Smefs: You certainly like to tempt fate, don't you. Please stop. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating such a revert pattern, I have opened a discussion on the talk page in an attempt to stave off exactly that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also just noticed that they went to back to Hin Bredendieck to force in their edits of Bredendieck being a student of Josef Albers. Of note, they previously indicated that they were related to Bredendieck, calling him a "late great-granduncle". Possible COI. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it and provided a reliable secondary source. I don't see what your problem is? Also, you already posted (multiple times) about your false COI allegations which multiple people have claimed are completely ridiculous. You're wrong, man.Smefs (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all accurate. You used a blog-like website as the source. In your own words, you stated "links I've made to my late great-granduncle's page" - those are your own words. You have made the assertion that "multiple people have claimed are completely ridiculous" in regards to this COI, but no one has said this, anywhere. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Translating a Wikipedia page (which already existed) of a notable relative is not COI, no matter how much you want it to be. Sorry bud.Smefs (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:, from WP:GERMANY has already commented on this by the way, as you've posted multiple times with the same question they've graciously answered. I don't see why you keep bringing it up -- it's a non-issue.Smefs (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a misrepresentation. Gerda_Arendt added many things to the Hin Bredendieck article, but never added that Hin Bredendieck was a student of Albers. You added that. Just you. My question at WP:GERMANY was about the notability of the subject, not Albers. These half-truths from you are disturbing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I never claimed that Gerda_Arendt made the Josef Albers edits (which I have been vindicated for anyway after you posted greyscape to the RS page). That's nowhere in my comment. What I said is that Gerda_Arendt commented on the false COI issue (more than once, actually) you keep bringing up and basically discounted it as irrelevant. It is so obviously a resolved issue I don't see why you think continuously bringing it up will change anything.Smefs (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you, or did you not, state that Hin Bredendieck is your "late great-granduncle"? Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "tempting fate." I'm editing a collaborative encyclopedia project and providing reliable secondary sources and ensuring neutral point of view. Smefs (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI May 2024

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)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to ping @Deepfriedokra: for a second opinion on this since he seems more familiar with Fred Zepelin's behaviorSmefs (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, no. I have nothing to offer here. I have no familiarity.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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)[reply]

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

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Then here, since I would like a second opinion @David Eppstein: Smefs (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smefs (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, no. I have nothing to offer here. I have no familiarity. (as was said above) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get an admin who can add a second opinion/ reply to my post?Smefs (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will review your unblock request when one gets around to it, although it's normally not too long. I recommend you read WP:GAB and rewrite your unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. I still fail to see how what I did warrants a block. I genuinely don't understand. Smefs (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not respond to emails about blocks unless there is a pressing concern that requires privacy. If you don't see how this is an unacceptable personal attack or is unlikely you will be unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to please humor me and point me to where in Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks my comment conflicts? This is not intended in bad faith. I am legitimately confused. I have read it over multiple times and cannot find any conflicts with what I said. I genuinely believe Fred Zepelin's actions violate Wikipedia's policy against whitewashing. This is not a personal attack, it's a genuine critique of his actions. I feel like I have to say it again but I actually, really, do not know what I did wrong and would love to understand. Smefs (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA says 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)[reply]

I feel as though I've extensively clarified that it was not an insult or disparaging. I was not insulting Fred Zepelin or his character, I was simply attempting to describe in as neutral language as I could possibly manage his behavior. It was, again, not in bad faith. To me, it feels like your interpretation of Wikipedia policy against harassment is so impossibly broad that it discourages any sort of fair discourse on other editors' actions and requires being applied unfairly to be enforced at all. I do not think this block could survive any sort of scrutiny at all.

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

Thanks,

Smefs (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very disappointing response. If whitewashing were a more explicit policy, that would increase your responsibility to back up accusations with evidence, not decrease it. I can accuse somene of liking artificial banana flavoring because being guilty of that offends nobody, breaks no rules, and has no reputational consequence. But if I'm accusing someone of acting in a racist, or a misogynistic, or homophobic, or whatever fashion, a charge that serious requires evidence that's serious.

The standard of backing up accusations, especially one that could cause Fred Zepelin significant on-wiki reputational damage, is not some obscure Wikipedia standard. It's a "being a decent, functioning person in a society who can interact with other humans" standard. Accusing someone of something bad without evidence in proportionality to the offense is not impossibly broad and doing so is not neutral. WP:NPA is policy and WP:AGF is a guideline.

I'm sorry, if you feel that accusing people of awful things without robust evidence in order to win a content dispute is a normal thing, then you're incompatible with this project whether or not that was your first day editing or your 5,000th. You accused someone of seeking to cover up people being able to learn about mass murder, some of the blackest things that humanity has done. This is not a "oopsy daisy, I'm just inexperienced!" moment.

I say all of this as a completely uninvolved editor, who has never even read the article in question until now and as far as I know, have never had a single interaction with anyone here who isn't an admin. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fred Zepelin has removed extensive amounts of information on the actions of ZANLA and ZIPRA paramilitary groups, and refers to their atrocities as "alleged" despite them being extensively, extensively documented by both sources on the page and on other articles, including with horrific photographic evidence.

These are not random, unfounded accusations, and I am well aware that they are not lighthearted ones. I feel like I have a responsibility to describe things for what they are, and to me this feels like "...seeking to cover up people being able to learn about mass murder, some of the blackest things that humanity has done," which is why I am so persistent in my opposition to his actions.

This also cannot be considered in isolation. Fred Zepelin originally found this article because we had a dispute multiple weeks ago, and he has continued to hound my page, going back months to find edits I made and undoing them. This includes the Zimbabwe article. I hope you understand that it is incredibly difficult for me to WP:AGF when this user has dedicated themselves to stalking my page for weeks on end for no reason. This is also a pattern of behavior that other users have complained about. (1, 2, 3)

Thanks for your response nonetheless,

Smefs (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing implies a motive. That has to be backed up. There are many, many reasons for content to be removed; you can't just assume the most negative one. That's the very foundation of WP:AGF and until you understand what the difference is, I can't imagine any admin will unblock you. Best wishes; I hope you're able to smoothly return to editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could it not be easily backed up by some guy with a lot of time on his hands just wanting to screw with me for insisting on edits he disliked? That makes sense to me. I have to say that I'm not usually a confrontational person, and again, I have tried my very best to assume good faith. Do you not agree that this can become difficult to do if a user shows consistent evidence of hounding and harassment?Smefs (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

In any case, this is an unproductive conversation, so I won't bother you any more. My hope was to talk you off the ledge so to speak, in order for you to have your best chance at eventually getting unblocked and being able to return to editing. So as I said above, all I can do is wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is it a simple belief? Is there not sufficient evidence to determine bad faith? Have "a lot of people" really reviewed my claims? Can you not find a significant amount of evidence that I repeatedly provided in the thread above and in many, many other places to constitute "sufficient evidence" that Fred Zepelin is a bad faith, harassing user who is, in fact, engaging in what could be amounted, depending on your perspective, to the whitewashing of genuine massacres in which many people were killed, solely as revenge in an edit war? I think that if you were to look at the evidence objectively, you'd find the answer to all of these questions is "no."

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

Smefs (talk) Smefs (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I legitimately do not understand how I can assume good faith from this user when they have shown the pattern of behavior that they have. Smefs (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether my reply is necessary (probably irrelevant), but I've been reading Smefs' accusations of whitewashing and I do feel compelled to point out that even that line of attack has no basis in reality, as I know most people don't have time to dig through that article history. My edit to a single section about a specific propaganda booklet was because when I read the section, I noticed the only source was the booklet itself (ie a primary source). I looked for a reliable secondary source, found one, and updated the section with that source and some verbiage summarizing that source. I made zero judgements about any atrocities, genocides, or anything related, by any groups. Just added some text about a single booklet that was distributed by one of the sides in that conflict. Like I said, probably irrelevant, because the problem with Smefs is deeper than a single edit war, but I did want to set that straight: the whitewashing accusation is completely unfounded at best, and just an outright lie at worst. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the second source is completely irrelevant to your edits. Your edits did not add information. They simply disqualified the actions committed by the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces. It is so plain to see that you did make clear judgements -- changing wording to "alleged," removing important information on the documentation of these atrocities, etc. You are attempting to hide behind the addition of a single secondary source through which no additional information was gleaned to justify your unfounded edits.

When you say that "the problem with Smefs is deeper than a single edit war," you are implying that I am the one who is continuing this. It implies that I am the one who is interested in this. I am not, and it's upsetting that you're mischaracterizing it in this way. I have no interest in continuing this conflict, but Fred Zepelin has been going through my page, constantly, in clear violation of Wikipedia conduct, in what I can only assume to be an extended campaign just to fuck with me. This is a clear case of a bad faith editor. In this case, he is not interested in clarifying truth and spreading knowledge -- he has a personal vendetta against me for some strange reason and is seeking some weird sort of revenge by harassing and hounding my page. I've said so on your talk page (which you have removed, repeatedly) but I'll say it again: I want you to leave me alone. This is a clear pattern of obsessive behavior which (before you removed it all) is shown through your Talk page. It isn't healthy and is honestly incredibly frustrating to deal with.

@Fred Zepelin, please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

Smefs (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make it clear: I will not be visiting this talk page again. Good luck to you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care if you visit this talk page again. I want you to leave me alone -- remove your bookmark to my contribs, whatever. I will be filing a harassment notice if you do not do so. Smefs (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is, by the way, continuing to hound me and harass me despite the fact that I am currently blocked (for little cause, might I add). I'd just like to note this to document his bad faith behavior and ask him for the nth time to leave me the fuck alone. This is beyond unhealthy and shows serious signs of obsession. Smefs (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long should I expect to wait for an administrator to review and undo this block? Smefs (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's been a week. When can I expect an administrator to review my appeal?Smefs (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to accept that unblock request, so you'll have to wait for another admin. I imagine what is happening is admins who patrol unblocks have read your unblock request and decided their not interested in joining this conversation when they decline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*they're Smefs (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

am not going to provide coaching for what wording might work to achieve an unblock. However, the May 2024 block shown above starts with "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors." My decline started with the link WP:GAB. It might be an idea to read at least the start of that page and digest what it says. The May block is still relevant because I don't see any acknowledgement of the problem. It is up to the editor concerned to read the obvious text at WP:GAB and work out for themselves what happened. Text like "I apologize for any harm my actions may have caused" is not convincing. You might think about how Wikipedia would work if people behaved in the way that has occurred in this incident. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for coaching. I am asking for what I did wrong! I have read WP:GAB extensively throughout this very bureaucratic and slow process, and it is not helpful because I cannot apologize for what I don't understand. In my appeal to the May block, the problem was extensively addressed because I actually understood what I did wrong, namely not knowing of the rule against personal attacks. Having known of this rule, I would have refrained from insinuating another user was psychotic for his behavior towards me. This case is different. I am still in the dark over which exact rule I broke. I apologize for my tone but it really feels like I'm in Kafka's The Trial or something here. Thanks. Smefs (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You aren’t breaking an exact rule, you seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding or concern as to why baselessly calling a user a psychotic denialist of war crimes isn’t just a violation of policy but a violation of basic decency. I’m not sure, but I don’t think you’ve ever apologized to Fred Zeppelin for making remarks about them that are not only hurtful but defamatory. Dronebogus (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see how that is incredibly confusing? I haven't broken any rules, but I am for some reason banned for breaking a rule. I didn't violate policy but I violated policy. Like, what? I also think you're misinterpreting what I said. If you read over our exchange, my specific wording was that what the offending user did constituted, in my view, the denial or whitewashing of some horrendous acts on the part of an African militia group. I do not believe this makes the user a "psychotic denialist of war crimes," what I believe is, and I feel that I have come to this conclusion based on a straight-faced reading of what was said and on this user's continued harassment and hounding of me over the period of weeks, is that the user attempted to rewrite some of my contributions in order to gloss over massacres and genocides in an attempt to get one over on me. Again, I feel that if you look at the evidence you will find that what I am saying is basically true. The user followed my page around for weeks, undoing and rewriting many of my edits, so in no way am I assuming bad faith to say that this is true. Smefs (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL over and over, saying the user is deliberately targeting you and/or deliberately trying to cover up war crimes. You have not provided sufficient evidence (i.e. diffs) so you are also functionally violating WP:ASPERSIONS. Those are your policy violations. If you want to get unblocked either provide hard evidence the other user was in the wrong or drop it and formally apologize. Dronebogus (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given your use of a publication of the Rhodesian Ministry of Information, your argument here is quite weak. To be perfectly frank, if you're ever unblocked -- which you will probably not be so long as you continue to double-down on your assumption of bad faith being accurate -- it really ought to come conditional on a significant topic ban. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe for sure, but looking at the revert history, probably a heck of a lot more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I hate to do this, but considering the behavior of the user in question and your typing style I can only assume you are another sockpuppet of his. Smefs (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I would be shocked to see you ever unblocked without a drastic change of approach. I tried to advise you nearly two months ago what you would need to change to have a chance at being unblocked, but it appears you have decided your preference is to be as instransigent as possible. Best of luck to you; since I think you're beyond advice, there's no need for me to offer any more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite frankly don't know what you expect me to do. Smefs (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your diffs. Fred Zeppelin's actions are in the right even if his flippant, combative tone needs some work. They definitely don’t seem to be “hounding” you; it’s common to look at a user’s contributions if they’ve made one bad edit to see if it’s a reoccurring thing with them. Most of your edits were poor for one reason or another, and I’m assuming good faith. You don’t seem to understand what a reliable source is, or your definition is different than the consensus of the community and you are offended that people don’t agree with you. I deal with rude but “respectable” users and yeah, it sucks, but more important than any relatively minor conduct issue (like this one) is having a fundamental issue with Wikipedia practices and guidelines. You appear to be having such an issue on the matter of reliable sources specifically and not accepting that maybe your version of an article isn’t the correct one more generally/ Dronebogus (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

My definition of a good source is different from a single obsessive and unstable editor with a clear agenda and who manipulates others and creates sockpuppet accounts to destroy those who disagree with him. You are not going to gaslight me into thinking this is only a problem with me -- this user has a consistent pattern of behavior over many months that many, many, many other users have experienced, and describing his behavior as just "looking at a user’s contributions" is so simplistic it might as well be a lie.

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

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

Smefs (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’d be surprised how many times I’ve been accused of being a sockpuppet of some random user somebody disagrees with. I’m sorry you have such a conspiracy theorist mindset but I can tell you have zero interest in actually trying to get unblocked. Dronebogus (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that this user's suggestions, particularly when he requests outside counsel such as on the question of Hin Bredendieck's alleged COI, are almost instantly shut down. Only a few select users who he so clearly either controls as meatpuppets or more likely as sockpuppet accounts concur with him. Smefs (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is also fascinating -- really all of the users who have come here to agree with Fred Zepelin are there. Deepfriedokra, Bishonen. Interesting stuff! But I'll be sure not to assume any bad faith here. Smefs (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it’s because Fred Zeppelin has a stronger case than you do? Just a possibility. Dronebogus (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's also because you're a sockpuppet of his.Smefs (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those replies were also from far before we came into conflict. It's so obviously a sockpuppet account, I don't know how you could think this would work lmaoSmefs (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]