User talk:Mostlyoksorta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reply to your latest post on my page[edit]

Sorry this is so long, but I've aimed to respond to points you've made in a complete way, and hopefully it's the last thing you'll have to read from me.

I'd rather not have that hard-to-read copypaste from on my page, and since you've posted it here as well,[1] I'll remove it from there and respond here, and I ask you to keep any discussion here from now on. Parallel discussions on two pages are always a big mess, especially when the same third parties comment in both venues… it's hopeless.

I had read your quotes from, indeed I'd read the page history, so that I could see the actual personal attack which is shown in your copypaste above, rather unhelpfully, as "PA entfernt --Hepha! ± ion? 23:31, 10. Apr. 2012 (CEST)". (Giving a section link to the appropriate historical version of the section in question would have let your reader see that, plus the formatting, the links, and the sigs. Check out the Simple diff and link guide for how.)

IIIRaute on German wikipedia. You've actually provided a link to IIIRaute's German block log once before, so you must have seen that he was first blocked for a month for making personal attacks, then had the block extended to indefinite for making another PA while blocked (you say banned, but that wasn't it), and there was no question of "supporting a Holocauset denier" in the block reasons. And still you claim he was "banned for supporting a Holocauset denier"? I think I'd better share my thoughts once and for all about IIIRaute's German wikipedia block. He edit warred on the German David Irving article to keep the word "historian" in the article lead. That was very poor judgement on his part, as there's consensus today that Irving doesn't deserve the honorable appellation historian; see the first footnote to our David Irving article, and also the section Reception by historians. You can read there that Irving used to be regarded as respectable historian, even "highly regarded for his expert knowledge of German military archives", but now, since several decades, all is tainted by his holocaust denial and his twisting of historical fact in the service of that. IIIRaute argued on that Irving is a historian, even though a holocaust denier, inasmuch some of his military archive research is still highly regarded and used (compare our article The Mare's Nest). In other words IIIRaute tried to set up his own personal view of the proper word to use against consensus among published scholars, always a really bad idea, and an appalling idea in Germany on such a subject. However, he wasn't blocked or banned for doing this, please note; but the heated discussion let directly to the PAs for which he was blocked. IIIRaute is doing time (indefinitely) on German Wikipedia for his sins in that regard, and they shouldn't be dragged here. Your complaints on ANI about his supposed abuse here haven't gained any purchase, which must be frustrating, but please stop trying to bolster them with this argument about "look what a horrible person he is, look what he did on German Wikipedia two years ago!" As somebody pointed out, we have users who are indeffed here but are admins on other projects. Actions on one project aren't supposed to taint the person forever on other projects.

I'll just add one detail more about your phrase "defending a holocaust denier": note that it was always a question of IIIRaute (wrong-headedly, stubbornly) defending the appellation "historian", and not of denying nor defending Irving's holocaust denial. Please pay close attention to the title of the 2007 book IIIRaute invoked as a reference: Christian Hardinghaus, David Irving: Historiker, Publizist und Holocaustleugner München, Grin Verlag, 2007, ISBN-13: 978-3638767354. "Historiker.. und Holocaustleugner." Historian and holocaust denier (holocaust denier is apparently "holocaust liar" in German; a good sharp word). A fairly recent book, very far from being some denialist crap. Please compare Hardinghaus' own article on

Asmallworld. About your suggestion "I think if you banned me and IIIraute from editing asmallworld - that would be a great solution. I would never mention him again, because I would have nothing to interact with him about." I'm nonplussed by it. You keep finding reasons to mention IIIRaute's editing of Germany-related pages (and you define Germany-related extremely generously on ANI) and his problematic editing on German wiki — on ANI, on my page, on the now-deleted "Long time abuse" thing, without the slightest connection with, or mention of, asmallworld. And now you say you'd stop mentioning him if neither of you were editing Asmallworld and disagreeing about some detail there? Surely you're not saying that your whole harassment campaign is angled at "winning" some utterly trivial content conflict on asmallworld? And yet I don't know how else to take it. Anyway, you overestimate my powers, I can't topic ban people from articles, unless those articles are under WP:Discretionary sanctions. That one isn't (no surprise there) so I'm afraid your proposal won't work. But you could always politely suggest a voluntary mutual withdrawal from it to IIIRaute. It might be a relief for both of you. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I would like you to know I have requested a voluntary mutual withdrawal from asmallworld multiple times, and that was always met with IIIraute making an, in my opinion petty, edit. I requested such a cease fire here[2] , and he made the next edit on ASW [3]- I tried to disengage and send our dispute to DRN [4] and after DRN as you know, he attempted to subvert the finality of that process - finally, he made this petty revenge edit [5] this morning - despite the DRN making no mention of using 'exclusive' and to what end? As I said and will say again I will be happy if both I and IIIraute never edit that page again. In terms of your assessment of my ANI claim, that's fine, but I think you are far afield of what I actually said in my report. I complained of a pattern of editing on english Wikipedia, and used his past on German Wikipedia as an insight into his intentions. In any case, I can't judge his true feelings+ on the matter but I can see he acted as a provocateur and as you have said above his comments were 'an appalling idea in Germany.' (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC))
So much for my hope that I'd covered everything. Haven't enough people told you about the lack of finality of that process yet? The DRN process has no authority (even apart from the fact that it was frankly botched this time). I'm starting to be very struck by the way you simply ignore any information that you get from experienced editors, however well placed they are to know what they're talking about, whenever it doesn't fit with your precinceived notions. Please read this again, from one of the more experienced DRN volunteers. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC).
I didn't ignore anyone's advice, I pointed out above that I proposed that IIIraute and myself both cease editing the page and let third parties deal with it, and that he refused to do so. If you see any point to his adding the word 'exclusive' other than to turn his nose up at the DRN volunteer and myself then you have a more creative mind then I do. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC))
And it is pretty aggravating that you permanently assume bad faith on my part. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC))