The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Edit summaries like reverted edits by a nazi sympathizer are unacceptable abakharev05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Я тоже Русский, и согласен с тобой! Ну чтобы выжить в Википедии надо искать нетральность. Ну выругаешь ты его, и что? Тебя блокируют нахрен и все, он будет радоваться! Нужно тебе это?? Культурно спорь, даже не с культурными людьми. Это всего лишь Википедия. Спокойнее! Знаешь сколько тут западников которые с радостью заблакируют всех Руских и привратят Википедию в свой агитационный ларек? Ну дашь им причину блокировать тебя! Кому от этого легче станет? Спокойнее! Тебя никто не торопит. Kostan1 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for taking you as the POV pusher in the article and for speaking to you with rudness. The reverts that Biophys just did, while at the same time you chose the talk page to bring up the points you don't agree with clearly showed me who is the POV pusher. I'm sorry. Kostan1 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry you were not rude. I don't know what we are going to do with Biophys; talking to him is like banging your head against the wall... -YMB29 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For helping to bring the Human rights in the Soviet Union to an NPOV, for being civil and using the talk page for things you don't agree with, for reverting a user who clearly pushes his NPOV into the nutral version, even though you yourself don't agree with many things in it. In other words, for maturity. Continue to be a great user! Kostan1 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe later. I just wonder: you are doing almost nothing but reverts in a single article for the entire month. Do not you have anything better to do? You apparently came here from Russian WP. So, what are your real interests?Biophys (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not from Russian WP.
Look at what you are doing in that article. I can't add anything to the article because of your senseless reverting. If you can't discuss, then maybe you should stay away instead of always reverting. -YMB29 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
You have recently engaged in a series of posts on ArbCom pages which contained highly charged assertions and hence breached the specific guidelines on user conduct handed down by ArbCom concerning the EEML case. You are thus receiving a first and final warning. Any further misconduct will result in a ban from the relevant ArbCom pages until the conclusion of the EEML case (except in direct response to an ArbCom question). Violation of that ban will result in blocking. Manning (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have very certain opinions in the talk page of the Winter War. I see you are interested in Finnish-Russian wars, so I suggest you read some books written of these subjects. It would help as all, as there would be a necessity to explain military history basics. As the Finnish historian Timo Vihavainen said a week ago in an interviews, there is not so much different view of historical event between Finnish and Russian historians. Only some marginal Stalinists (he used the word, I would use some softer title) still dispute with historians. For a start, you could watch television documentry (spoken Russian, with Finnish subtitles) by Russian Televisio Channel in You Tube [2]. It has 10 episodes, total about 1 hour. Peltimikko (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All those who don't share the Finnish view are Stalinists...
Anyway, thanks for the link, but what was the point of this message? I am not the one who is making POVed, uninformed edits or comments. -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I gave impression of that only the Finnish is right. Opening of the Moscow Archieves in the 1990s has generally backed the Finnish view of the Winter War, but also deepends our understanding of the war. However, as I have wrote in the Continuation War's talk page, the Finnish historians have also have to changed their earlier views. For example, earlier the Finnish histography saw the Continuation War as a separate war between Finland and the USSR, but in 1990s and especially in 2000s, historians, especially younger, see the war and an ally with Germany against the USSR. Peltimikko (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes I agree that there is a better understanding now. However, there is still a lot that can be debated and subject to different interpretations. Are the Finnish archives open like the former Soviet ones? -YMB29 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish archives are located in "Arkistolaitos" [3] (trivia: before 2008 there was the War Archives (Sota-arkisto), but became a part of bigger The National Archives Service (=Arkistolaitos)). Generally speaking the Finnish archives has been open for years, especially after the Soviet Union collapse, but there is an excetion: a couple of years ago the Finnish Defence Forces release couple of banned photos which can be seen in Commons (they were either too cruel or politically incorrect). Peltimikko (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.
Now I can only quote the words by the sock of Mvei (see above at your talk page): "Ну выругаешь ты его, и что? Тебя блокируют нахрен и все, он будет радоваться! Нужно тебе это?? Культурно спорь, даже не с культурными людьми." Do you agree with Kostan1? I do.Biophys (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
Russavia (talk·contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
Vlad fedorov (talk·contribs), Ellol (talk·contribs), and YMB29 (talk·contribs) are banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, they may each apply to have their ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
Biophys (talk·contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophy may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
Consecutive to that topic ban, Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year.
Russavia and Vlad federov are admonished for posting personal information of other editors.
Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
I'm sorry to hear you have been banned from editing or rather participating to the ongoing discussions on the Continuation War and the related topics. I'm rather dubious that making an appeal for getting you 'rights' to at least participate in the ongoing talk page discussions would do much good after reading the arbitration decisions. Though we have been mainly disagreeing on topics and occasionally i felt nearly like coming into blows that is pretty much exactly what should be expected when discussing a contested topic with able opponent.
I could still make an appeal for at least talk page rights or rather rights to continue and finish the currently ongoing discussions if you think that would be any of any help. Not sure where and how to do it though - I'm not really familiar with wiki arbitration system. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern. Yes even though we had intense arguments we could still come to an agreement and compromise (which was impossible with that other user).
Looks like the decision won't be changed now. Don't know why they made it; I guess they were in a rush to close the case... I asked about posting on talk pages and continuing the discussion, but this is not allowed also.
Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of [Russavia-Biophys] is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.
From Template:Disputed & Template:Dubious and from other templates you prefer to post across the articles... All actually require the person making the claim to actually post description of the issue to the talk page. They are not for flagging items that an editor simply thinks might be incorrect. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you should mark clearly in the talk what exactly in the tagged section is the problem, blanketing the article with tags and then stating that discussion is ongoing without clearly stating what exactly was the problem with the tagged sections is clearly not the way usage of those templates. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi YMB29! Sorry for the few days' gap in discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've gone ahead and started a thread at the Mediation Cabal about Battle of Tali-Ihantala to get the ball rolling. The mediation page is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. You don't need to do anything just yet - the next stage is finding a mediator. If you want to fill out more details about the dispute itself then that's fine, but there shouldn't be any discussion there just yet. Hopefully we can all find a speedy and peaceful resolution to all the issues there. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius♫14:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, hope everything is going well for you. I have decided to mediate the MedCab case myself, if that is ok by you. There are some ground rules I've made which I would like agreement to - you can find them at the mediation page linked to above. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius♫05:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again YMB29. About these tags and these tags - sorry, but I think they are best left out for the duration of the mediation. I can appreciate that you might want to warn readers about the things being disputed, but because of the number of statements under dispute, I think this is better done by the neutrality dispute banner right at the top of the page. The banner at the top of the page is a big bright warning, and should be enough to make the vast majority of readers view the article with a critical eye. If either of you are still adding or removing tags while the mediation is ongoing, however, it runs the risk of making the dispute more about the tags than the actual content. Please understand that this is not making any judgements about the tagged statements themselves, but that it purely procedural. I hope you can consider my opinion here, and I trust that you will refrain from more tagging while we are in mediation. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♫02:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello YMB29. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Continuation War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 September 2012.
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Continuation War, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Continuation War, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
Could you please stop repeatedly calling me "misleading" at noticeboard [4],[5]? I am not. The Soviet/Russian "candidate" degree in humanities is usually counted at best as M.S., not PhD (in US). These guys have to enroll again in PhD programs in US and spend a few years to earn their real PhD degrees. I also said "deportation" (singular). Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did not specify which deportation.
Candidate of Historical Sciences is equivalent of a PhD in history. I don't know where you get that it is like a master's degree. -YMB29 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on discretion of employer (e.g. university). They may ask to provide a formal certification of your diploma (there are organizations in US who do such certification). As far as I know, the result will be that a Russian "candidate" of History or political sciences is equal to M.S. But that may depend on specific organization in Russia that gave such degree (not VAK of course, but History department of MSU, for example). The programs and requirements in Russian and US PhD programs in humanities are very different. That's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be exceptions, but generally it is considered equal to a PhD.
I am not a historian myself. So you might wish to read this lecture by Doctor Miller (this is a much higher degree than "candidate", right?). Here is what he thinks:
"Исаев и Дюков. Дюков очень интересный персонаж – можете набрать его в «Википедии», найдете о нем целую статью. Александр Дюков – директор фонда Историческая память. Молодой человек, где-то ему 30 с небольшим, окончил, кажется, Историко-архивный, никогда с тех пор по профессии не работал. До недавнего времени. Создал фонд и где-то по три-четыре книжки в год сейчас издает. Откуда фонд финансируется, остается догадываться.
Я успел прочитать две книжки. Первая книжка посвящена политике УПА – Украинской повстанческой армии в отношении евреев. Книжка по содержанию более или менее пристойная. Но тут как бы совпадение интенций и исторической правды получается. Потому что ему важно было показать, что УПА плохо обходилась с евреями. Действительно, плохо обходилась. Что в этой книжке бросается в глаза, так это большое количество материалов из архивов ФСБ, которые, как отмечается, впервые вводятся в научный оборот. Как он их получил? Надо спросить у мемориальцев, как они получают документы из ФСБ. Наверное, это обычное и простое дело.
Now he tells about the book "The Great War Slandered" by Dyukov:
... Эта книга – отповедь клеветникам, опровержение самых грязных, самых лживых мифов о Великой Отечественной войне, распространяемых врагами России».
"И вот в такой стилистике вся эта книжка и написана, из чего вы можете примерно заключить, что это за человек. Итак, вот такой фонд, вот такой историк, которого Данилин называет любителем. Какие издательства издают его книжки? - «Европа», «Regnum» «Эксмо». Про них тоже можно кое-что сказать. «Regnum» возглавляет Колеров, который служил в администрации президента, «Европа» – это Павловский и его центр."
Finally, Dr. Miller asks:
"Как вы думаете, писания Дюкова кто-нибудь примет всерьез за рубежами нашего отечества? Вот мы смеемся над тем, что публикует украинский Институт народной памяти? Смеемся. И заслуженно. И они так же будут смеяться над тем, что публикует Дюков." My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one opinion from the Russian Wikipedia article on Dyukov. There are positive opinions too.[6]
Historians whose renditions of Soviet history depart from incontrovertible facts and historians who look upon those historians favourably are not reliable. This is a very old argument that has long been put to bed. A degree in and of itself is not an indication of reliability. VєсrumЬа ►TALK13:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "incontrovertible facts" are you talking about? It seems like any source that is not anti-Soviet is unreliable to you... -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
Well, just one for instance, Dyukov maintains no Estonians were deported in cattle cars, that all rode to resettlement in Siberia in coach car trains attended by physicians and nurses for their welfare. An utter lie. It would take days to document everything wrong with what he's written, he's little more than RT's poster boy for debunking so-called Baltic lies. And I'll thank you not to engage in personal attacks.
Oh, as for the positive reviews of Dyukov's works, the individuals cited are hardly reliable as to the objectivity of Dyukov's scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK23:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not engaging in personal attacks; your view is well known.
Again, this is not about Dyukov and your dislike of him. However, considering that he based his research on archival documents, I will not be surprised if he is right... -YMB29 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since FSB archives clearly lie (assuming his reportage is accurate, there's no third party verification), I would not be surprised if his scholarship is worthless. You know the old saying, garbage in, garbage out... Since Dyukov is well aware of testimony to the facts, his choice to call such testimony a lie is his choice. Oh, let's not forget his documentary movie blaming the Poles for starting WWII, classic victim blaming. VєсrumЬа ►TALK02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! My name is Lord Roem and I've been appointed the mediator for your RfM before the Mediation Committee. First and foremost, remember to keep an open mind during this process. Communication breakdowns are the root cause of these disputes, so only being open to compromise and hearing the views of the other party can we all move forward. With that said, please do the following things as we start the mediation:
Mark the Mediation case page on your watchlist, if you haven't already
Prepare and post a short opening statement on the case talk page here that is no more than 250 words. Briefly bullet-point the issues you feel are in dispute, and your initial position concerning those issues.
If you have any questions during this process, always feel free to leave a note on my talk page. But, please try to keep all discussion on the case page itself. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It was not shared by F-14. 9 MiG-25s were shot down by F-14 and one by a F-5, whose pilot was Yadollah Javadpour. In the Tom Cooper's book is only mentioned the F-14 victories not of F-5s.Diako Zandi 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diako1971 (talk • contribs)
Three complaints have been filed at Administrators noticeboard/Incidents [8] seeking relief from actions taken by users on the Continuation War talk page, on which you have been active. Paavo273 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctors' plot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuri Zhukov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Please immediately revert your hiding of my comments rel Solonin. This is inappropriate and could be construed as a 3RR violation when taken with your 3 reverts in 24 hours to the article page: "A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part (my bold), whether involving the same or different material."
In future, please do not hide other contributors' info at talk pages, especially unless you have received courtesy permission to do so.
You can unhide it if you wish, but you breaking it into a separate sub-section makes the discussion hard to follow. -YMB29 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the 3RR rule (see my quote from the rule above) DOES apply to talk pages. But I see your point. I've put it in its own section below, so as not to interrupt the thread. As such, feel free to delete the one you've hidden. It would have been better I see now to start a new MAIN heading for Solonin. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregkaye: As far as I know, appeal requests should be posted on the admin noticeboard. You can try posting there, but from my experience it is usually hard to get admins to look into an issue and do something, especially if it involves undoing an action of another admin. -YMB29 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soviet war crimes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tadeusz Piotrowski. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The only thing what is he doing is reverting of articles, without meaningful and neutral explanations, because of such dumbs i deleted my account on wiki. 93.223.14.167 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... Did you really have to reply on my talk page over a week later about something that did not involve you? I guess you are keeping an eye on my editing behavior... -YMB29 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna. Speaking about my recent interactions with YMB29 on several pages (we did not interact at all during two previous years), I believe these particular interactions were just fine. I made some changes, YMB29 reverted, and we discussed. This is basically along the lines of WP:BRD. This is not to say that I support highly partisan sources used by YMB29 or his sustained slow-motion edit wars in numerous pages with multiple users, ones that he always "wins". My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, YMB29. In re-reading my missive, I realise that it came across as being an obnoxious reprimand targeting you editing behaviour (you're welcome to trout slap me for the rendering of my message). Yes, there was a time lapse as I didn't consider it to be an urgent issue and am busy IRL. My intention was merely to remind you that we should be wary of our responses to unsolicited complaints against other regular contributors. I've been keeping an eye on this IP hopper as I'm fairly certain s/he is a user known to me who is evading their block. I wanted to point out that regulars should be cautious about empowering trolls whose impetus is that of divisive tactics.
Of course I've been following the deliberations over the article you've both been working on, and understand it to be a collaborative effort. I simply want to remind you that it's best to be vigilant about being played. Keep up the great work (both of you)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree: this a suspicious IP (they just admitted above to be a "secondary account", possibly to avoid detection), and the claim about "harassment" was completely bogus. In fact, I tried to help by convincing YMB29 that he is using inappropriate sources (using better sources could help him to avoid the disputes), but unfortunately this did not work [9], [10], so I give up. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how reverting me in different articles is helping me. This is just the kind of actions that lead to disputes and edit wars.
So what Russian historians are appropriate sources according to you? You have to understand that there are reliable sources with views you don't agree with and they belong in the articles. You don't see me removing reliable sources just because I don't agree with what they say. -YMB29 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Political repressions and war crimes are different things. I still did not get the sources I asked for, but at the time I was busy with other topics and did not care enough to continue on with this.
This has nothing to do with removing "inappropriate" sources, so what is your point?
How, precisely, does that exclude it from being a War Crime, YMB29? Is this some form of WP:OR equivalent to a woman not being legally able to be raped by her husband because he has conjugal rights? You should also note that there is nothing untoward in checking an editor's contribution history in order to establish patterns and a predelection for particular changes in content surrounding a particular issue (known as a WP:SPA). In fact, your pattern of editing certainly lends itself to such an interpretation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now I am a SPA...
Imprisonment or deportation by a government of its own citizens are not war crimes. If you are claiming otherwise without sources, you are guilty of OR.
"The countries were annexed, not occupied". So, you believe that Baltic states were not occupied by the Soviet Union (diff above). Well, this is just one of many fringe ideas you are trying to promote here (others are that mass rapes in Germany did not happen or that Stalin did not plan to transform Finland to another Soviet Republic, for example) and conduct slow motion edit wars on multiple pages to enforce these fringe views by nationalist authors. This is obvious from looking at the edit histories of the corresponding pages, including this, this, this, or this and their talk pages, such as here, which shows clear pattern of WP:TE/WP:DE editing. Of course, this could be reported by someone to WP:AE, but this is not my responsibility. I do not care any more. Good bye. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cared enough to spend time researching my edit history again.
Go look up the word annex and occupy. If you still think it was occupation for 50 years, you are the one promoting nationalistic views.
Try reading the policy you're invoking again with care: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." No one has been 'stalking' or 'harassing' you. You've called attention to yourself by your tendentious editing patterns, and this has happened over a protracted period of time. There is nothing peculiar or 'hounding'-like about developing an uncomfortable feeling about a contributor's bent and quarrelsome method of editing, then following their editing history in order to establish whether it is typical or atypical for that contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what tendentious editing patterns are you talking about? We have interacted only in one article, in which you removed text without consensus on behalf of someone else. You came here to post also on behalf of someone else, to defend another user.
I guess you easily develop "an uncomfortable feeling" about users who don't agree with you on something...
The fact that you keep coming to my talk page when there is no real reason to do so (our brief article dispute was over a month ago) speaks for itself. -YMB29 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a RS for the translation - you keep linking to the Russian - article - but then one is asked to trust your translation - but you are not a RS imo. Sayerslle (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and you? - see talk page at the article - if you take on the task , you are meant to put the original on the page - did you do that? no you bleedin well didn't. . you simply don't follow the rules and understand how translations are used here, , and, remember , Translations published by reliable sources are preferred - (especially I should think when about contentious topics, where pov pushing is likely a problem that could emerge) - Sayerslle (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for deliberately misrepresenting sources to push an agenda, as noted at User talk:Nick-D#User:YMB29. I also note this recent post were you wrongly stated that "the text is directly supported by the quote provided", which suggests that you see nothing wrong with this conduct - I seriously considered making the block duration indefinite. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing: Misrepresenting sources. This user has been blocked several times for short periods, without any change apparent in his behaviour. Longer blocks now need to be considered.
I have extended the block given to you by User:Nick-D due to your continuing tendentious editing, and seemingly unchanged behaviour: misrepresentation of sources, followed by continual arguments against consensus, as demonstrated recently at AN/I. As you noted, WP:ARBEE applies to this case, and it is in accordance with this previous decision that both Nick and I are acting.
Now, honestly, editors here can see that you are very passionate about investigating the aftermath of issues such as the Soviet seizure of Berlin at the end of the Second World War. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from clear-eyed editors who could bridge the range of sources available in both Russian, English, and other Eastern European languages. I think I would speak for more editors that just myself in saying that quoting full sources, and then debating their level of historical credibility, with due regard given to potential ways history is shaped through official lens, would be very welcome. Personally I would very much encourage you to consider reviewing WP:PILLARS and thinking about the ways you might contribute positively to building this encyclopedia, without undue emphasis on debating issues on talkpages. I'd be happy to put further thoughts on this to you should you wish it.
As always, please feel free to appeal this block through the normal process, and I am just about to doublecheck that I have continued to allow you to edit your own talkpage. Kind regards Buckshot06(talk)22:22, 13 February 2015 (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).
As I understand the original reason Nick-D wanted to block me was the text cited to Bird. I don't understand how the text was a deliberate misrepresentation by me given that:
It was first added to Battle of Berlin by another user in 2010[12] with consensus from other users, and has been in the article for years.
It states exactly what Bird says about the statistics, without stating or implying anything else. See the section below for more details.[13]
As for Roberts' text, I was not trying to imply that Roberts' view was that the scale was normal or low; that was not the point I was trying to make when I added the text. I did correct myself with a partial self revert[14] and was going to make more changes. Again, see the section below for more.[15] If I did make a mistake, it was unintentional. I think good faith was not assumed towards me with regard to this text, because Nick-D already decided that I should be blocked for re-adding Bird's text.
Regarding what Buckshot06 added, I was and still am willing to discuss content issues and go through dispute resolution if everyone sticks to the content. Too often some users on talk pages have concentrated on me instead of the content. I felt that I was harassed by a group of users (some of them have a history of doing that), so I created the ANI report.
My last block was almost three years ago, so it is not like I was continuing disruptive behavior.
If there are concerns about my editing, I think changing my block to a 1RR limitation for a month or longer (or have some kind of a supervision over my edits) would be the better solution. -YMB29 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that my block is mainly based on the assumption that I intentionally misrepresented sources to push a POV, which is simply not true and insulting. I ask for any neutral admin or user to read the text section below[16] that explains everything. -YMB29 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my block was further extended to indefinite, because I tried to explain that there was no misrepresentation and presented evidence; I think this is unfair too. -YMB29 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
In all seriousness, an unblock with topic ban may be possible if you accept there are problems, however continuing to deny the problems is unlikely to lead anywhere. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2015 (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.
Given that your misrepresentation of Roberts' book was very similar to your misrepresentation of Bird's review (as noted at User talk:Nick-D#User:YMB29, that's not at all credible: there's no way that this was an accident. You have clearly been misrepresenting sources to further an agenda of casting doubt on the scale of the rapes committed by Red Army forces in Germany. I concur with Buckshot's decision to impose a longer block. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:::Decline request to be unblocked. There is no real evidence at this point to suggest that you will change your behaviour: you're continuing to make tendentious arguments which, as Nick-D has shown, fly in the face of what you actually did. Should you wish, you can use this talk page as a sandbox to demonstrate that you are able to edit in line with Wikipedia's normal standards. We can talk again in two weeks or so, giving you a chance to consider your actions - a cooling-off period. Buckshot06(talk) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC) I have been advised that I, an involved admin, cannot review the unblock request. Buckshot06(talk)03:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, there is a misunderstanding. I told you a number of times I did not add the text sourced to Bird to the Berlin article; it was first added by another user (well respected) in 2009.[17] Why don't you look at the diff? This change had consensus and was in the article for years. I only re-added it when other users came to the article and started reverting it.
Regarding Roberts, I corrected myself with a revert. I can honestly say that I was not trying to imply anything Roberts did not say. Can you re-read the text (after my revert)? As I told you, I was going to add his view on the scale today.
Also, are you suggesting there will be a topic ban too? I don't understand.
Buckshot06, how can I use this page? I don't think fair attention was given to my arguments. I don't need two weeks to cool off. How about a few days?
Also, can I email you later (don't know if your email communication is turned on) about an issue I noticed right after I was blocked? I don't want to post it here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Construct the text here that you would like to add, and invite comment upon it, noting where you would have it inserted. Two weeks is just about the least amount of time I judge you might need to consider your actions, but as I've just been advised, I cannot consider your unblock request. Buckshot06(talk)03:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: The problem is that another user has taken advantage of my block right away to revert my edits (and those of others) on multiple pages, including Rape during the occupation of Germany. This shows that the situation is more complex than it looks. I can present evidence, but I don't know if it is appropriate to do so here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it is ok for others to revert my edits on multiple pages, including those which don't have to do with rape in Germany, as soon as I am blocked? Also did you look at my reply about misrepresenting sources? -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the Bird stuff? Wikiblame shows that you added the first (and most problematic) of the two examples I checked [19] (the diff is [20] and your edit summary was "new text"). Wikiblame isn't turning up who originally added the second example, but even if I was to accept your argument, you're the one who recently re-added it despite having apparently having access to the reference and you're responsible for this as well anyway per WP:PROVEIT. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to Rape during the occupation of Germany from the Berlin article. It is a valid text, which was discussed by others many times on the talk pages. There is no misrepresentation. I believe you jumped to conclusions. I will add a section about it and the other text below. -YMB29 (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis on my talk page is accurate. You are still picking out bits of the texts, and ignoring the authors' actual arguments to push your views (in Roberts' case, his focus is on why the Red Army committed a number of rapes he regards as being greatly above the "normal" level that would be expected for an army of this size and does not suggest that the numbers were not high as you are implying that he wrote). Given that you're still doing this while blocked, I am extending the block duration to indefinite as it seems likely that you'll take up this stuff again once the block expires. 06:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Are you serious? I added a section that explains everything. How is this disruptive? Did you even read it carefully? I told you that I modified Roberts' text and did not imply that he thinks that the Red Army committed rapes on a normal level. This is an insulting accusation, just like with Bird's text.
Basically, you are punishing me for explaining my case.
For starters, the first sentence of the paragraph you wrote on Roberts' views is grossly misleading: he doesn't consider the "extend of the Red Army's rape is hard to judge" - he states that it was very high and why this was the case is then the focus of his analysis. The rest of your "revised" paragraph gives readers no inkling of this at all. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He directly says that it is difficult to judge, see here.
He does imply that it is high (although not millions) later, but I did not intent to make claims about the scale; that was not the point of my edit (and it was not the right section to do that).
Again, I did not consistently push this text. If someone would have told me that they think the text is still not accurate and a specific part should be changed, I would have considered changing the wording (like I did the first time) or letting them do it. -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not one person in that ANI has supported your behaviour, or has suggested that even if you behaviour is questionable that at least you have the sources behind you.
The majority of those who have supported action have supported a topic ban on your account editing WP:ARBEE articles and talk pages.
Your style of arguing has backfired on you since you attempted to justify why the block that admin user:Nick-D imposed is inappropriate.
As I see it you only have four choices open to you:
Leave your current block review in place and hope that a sympathetic admin wanders by.
Remove your unblock request and make one in six months or more in the hope that as time has passed admins are more sympathetic.
Decide now that you have had enough of editing Wikiepdia articles and walk away.
Agree to an indefinite WP:ARBEE standard discretionary sanctions ban and I will support your request and ask uninvolved admin to impose the sanctions.
The first two are a gamble and you will have to ask yourself "are you feeling lucky punk"?
The third one will allow you to to edit in other areas where you are less passionate. This will allow you to develop you skills at consensus editing and interpersonal relationships within the Wikipedia community. I personally am in favour of this approach, but I have to warn you that many editors who are topic banned from one area often display similar tendencies in other areas and then get banned. So if you choose this option it is not a get out of jail free, but if after as suitable length of time you are sill editing constructively then you can request that the topic ban is lifted. I can not grantee that option 3 is now available but it is in my opinion the only option available to you that give you an chance of editing a Wikipedia article in the near future. Buckshot06 and User:Nick-D what are your thoughts on this? -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, I don't think your comments were appropriate here, given that you were involved in a long dispute with me.
You complained about me, but I have many complaints about you too.
I realize that I am alone. The person I reported in the ANI has others who can stick up for him (this is not surprising since he was part of the EEML). A similar thing happened when I filed a 3RR report a few weeks ago. I was attacked by many users, who were uninvolved in the dispute. He also canvassed you and others I had disputes with to come in and say how bad of a user I am. This of course sways admin opinion.
My block is based on the accusation that I intentionally misrepresented text, which is not true. Any neutral person reading the section below will see this. -YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D may have blocked you for a week on the basis that you misrepresented the text, but I extended it because you cannot seem to understand the need for consensus and working together with others - this is a collaborative encyclopedia. Oh and yes, as far as I can tell you have repeatedly tried to distort text in support of your arguments. Read WP:PILLARS and decide whether you want to be here: I'd commend *all* of PBS's statements to you wholeheartedly. Regards 203.97.106.191 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Buckshot06?
I understand the policy about consensus. I did not try to force changes through when it was clear that there was a genuine consensus against me. I don't understand how that is possible if everyone was against me. I always tried to discuss issues and asked for dispute resolution, but often I was ignored.
Please tell me how I distorted text? I think I have explained clearly that I did not. Again, I invite you to read the section below carefully. -YMB29 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not seem to realise the hole that you are in. "You complained about me, but I have many complaints about you too." that is irrelevant to your current situation. The only way you are going to be able to edit Wikipedia again is option 4 (Agree to indefinite WP:ARBEE sanctions). That you are still stating "My block is based on the accusation that I intentionally misrepresented text, which is not true" and "I did not try to force changes through when it was clear that there was a genuine consensus against me". If that last statement were true then you would realise that there is a "genuine consensus" for you to be WP:ARBEE sanctioned at the ANI. I'll say no more other than to repeat that you are in a hole and you only have those four options left. -- PBS (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you coming here? Again, you are an involved user. I find your comments like "You still do not seem to realise the hole that you are in" or "When you are in a hole, stop digging" rude. You posted similar things in our discussions before.
I was not talking about consensus to sanction users. You saying the consensus policy applies to user sanctions?
As the EEML case showed such consensus on noticeboards can be misleading. When users I never encountered before show up in the ANI or 3RR threads and post walls of text about how bad of a user I am,[21][22] I wonder how genuine this consensus is. -YMB29 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JBH comments
It was bad enough that you blame all your criticism on some conspiracy of Wikipedia editors. Now I see you are accusing me of being a member of EEML. I had to go read some of the ARBEE case to even know what it was. No I am not/was not a member of that list nor do I know any of the people listed in the case. Is your view of reality so distorted that you must believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a part of some vast conspiracy? Even if EEML is still a thing, one does not need to be a member of a conspiracy to disagree with you and it would serve you in good stead to remember that. Sometimes, I would bet more often than not, people disagree with you because they think you are wrong and you/your sources have failed to convince them of your position. This is not an attack on you it is how collaboration and consensus works, not just on Wikipedia but in real life as well. I hope you come to understand this by editing Wikipedia on subjects you less passionately attached to.
Since you see fit to, yet again, misrepresent my motives to try to deflect or justify your own misbehavior I will take the time tell you how I came to comment at ANI. I have collapsed per all of your wall of text complaints.
Why I noticed your ANI/ My interaction with VM
I was working to help a new editor who wanted to modify Euromaidan to agree more with the Russian perspective. Specifically he was concerned with how Yanukovich´s removal from office was described. When I made the edit we had agreed on Volunteer Marek quickly reverted it saying the sourcing was bad. Sound familiar? Here is how our two interactions with VM differed. I presented him with good sources that agreed with my proposed edit. He stated his concerns and we then came up with a way to fairly reflect the sources. The final result was far closer to the position I was trying to change to than the one he wanted to keep but that was what the sources said and he accepted it. No muss, no fuss, no edit warring. Nothing but collegial editing and compromise. This is the interaction you say made me involved and a partisan of VM. I doubt you can find anyone less involved than I was who would take the time to comment on your complaint. You asked for fresh eyes, you got them. I just did not agree with you.
Why I chose to comment.
I was watching Vm´s talk page I saw your ANI and thought I would take a look figuring you might be like the prior over enthusiastic editor I was working with. When I looked into your complaint I found not the passionate newbie I was expecting but rather a tenacious POV editor. Since I had taken the time to familiarize myself with the issue to the extent I stated at ANI I wrote my opinion based on what I had read. At that time I still had the hope that stern comments from someone who was completely uninvolved in the despite, and with the one exception I noted, completely foreign to all of the editors and admins previously dealing with the issue might get you to take a step back and consider what was being said to you.
Many people here have taken the time to give you good advice in a courteous, if direct, manner. I hope you can see I was one. Please return the courtesy by seriously considering what they say and modifying your behavior.
Like I said before, if you just left a comment with your opinion, that would have been fine, but no, you went out of your way, posting walls of text that accused me and advocated for the other users in the dispute. -YMB29 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let us make a deal. You do not try to misrepresent my words or motives to excuse your behavior and I will not come around and point out those misrepresentations. I think that is a fair proposal. Do you not? PS I really hope this is our last exchange but in the likely event it is not you know you do not need to use the 'wall-of-text' hammer in every exchange with me, I made the comment to you. I consciously gave you that hammer and you gleefully swing away. I know it is the only quasi legitimate complaint you can support about me but really everyone has gotten the point by now. Have a good day/night as applicable in your timezone. JBH (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at your first comment; you openly attacked me:
All of the above suggest to me that you are suffering from a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and are engaging in battleground behavior to push a fringe POV on this article against the consensus of every other author involved with it. If you do not understand that Wikipedia operates on consensus you need to take a break from editing this topic either willingly or enforced. There is currently no consensus for the changes you wish to make it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Based on what I have read I would endorse the targeted application of WP:BOOMERANG.[23]
Now, let us look at all of the phrases, the ones you did not highlight, that make this not a personal attack but rather a fair statement of opinion -"All of the above suggest to me that...against the consensus of every other author...If you do not understand that Wikipedia operates on consensus...There is currently no consensus for the changes you wish to make...Based on what I have read... Do you actually not know the difference between criticism and attack?JBH (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I look at your comment without the bolded statements? You did write them and that changes the whole tone completely.
You can't assume that a user is wrong just because he is outnumbered in an argument. Consensus is not based only on the numbers. You have to take into account the quality of the arguments and conduct of those involved, as well as the histories of the page and users.
I am not saying that you are the reason for my block, but you did help sway admin opinion; just look at Buckshot06's first comment there. -YMB29 (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Why are you coming here". I am coming here because you need an interlocutor now that your access to ANI is barred. Not only am I am experience editor, but because I am also an experienced administrator (as an administrator I have never taken any form of administrative action against you (per involved)). Your situation is by no means a unique one and so I can see where it is heading. If you were to agree to option 4 I am fairly certain that I could ask an uninvolved administrator to do the paper work providing that user:Nick-D consents to such a development. Then if after a year or more of responsible editing in other areas, if you wished you could open a suitably worded ANI to have the sanctions lifted. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be here to insult me and to make sure I am gone for long. One or two comments were enough, but you keep coming.
You were involved in a long dispute with me, so you are not exactly neutral. You seem to be a well respect user here, but in our dispute I found your conduct inappropriate.
Using arguments from an obvious SPA (who simply copy and pasted text written by another disruptive user) against me in the ANI, further shows that you are not objective when it comes to me.
I don't see why I should be banned for a long time based on accusations that are simply not true. If I am blocked, this should be based on something I actually did and based on evidence, not accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I think happened. You saw the reverting at Battle in Berlin. You saw three users reverting text and me trying to restore it, and concluded that I was the problem. Here are some points I want to make for you to consider:
Those three users never edited the article before. You see nothing wrong with users coming to an article they never edited before to remove text (that was added over 9 months ago), claiming that it was sneaked in without consensus, and then doing the same for text that was added in 2010? I actually notified you about this.[25]
The first removal of text[26] was done because supposedly the sourced historian is a falsifier of history.[27] The same user removed text cited to the historian from three other articles.[28][29][30] The whole claim about the historian was made based on an accusation found in a blog. As you know, we can't consider blogs reliable sources, especially for information about a living person (WP:BLOGS). The historian is a credible academic source, see here[31] for more information about all this. The next two reverts simply repeated the first, and the last two reverts also removed text that was added back in 2010, falsely assuming that I added it there.
As for my revert Thursday, I assumed that my argument on the talk page[32] was convincing, since no one replied.
So this is basically a spill over from the dispute at Rape during the occupation of Germany, where one user followed my history to make a revert in the Berlin article, and then the other two users repeated his actions. You think this is a proper way to build a new consensus in an article? Two of the three users reverting the text were members of the EEML, and here is relevant information from that case regarding consensus: When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.[33] -YMB29 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I still can't understand why you think the text cited to Bird was a misrepresentation. You don't trust me then fine, but I don't think you can suspect Paul Siebert (who first added the text[34]) of any mischief; he was a well respected user. Did you read his comments in the section below?[35] The fact that the text was in the article for years should tell you that no one had a problem with it.
The users who removed it from the articles were not even saying that Bird does not criticize any particular statistic. They were claiming that I cherry picked the criticism, because Bird's review is positive overall. Since the subject was not Beevor's book, but the statistics, I don't think that is cherry picking either.
I also can't understand why my attempts to explain things to you are considered by you as continuation of disruptive editing. I think there is a misunderstanding and I am willing to discuss this with you. As I understand, your view is that Bird criticizes some statistics, but not the 2 million figure? -YMB29 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the text in question (in bold) that was in Battle of Berlin:
Although all sources agree that rapes occurred, the numbers put forward are estimates. A frequently quoted number is that 100,000 women in Berlin were raped by soldiers of the Red Army (Helke Sander & Barbara Johr: BeFreier und Befreite, Fischer, Frankfurt 2005), but this estimate has been questioned by Nicky Bird (Nicky Bird, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct. 2002), pp. 914–916), who characterises the statistics as "unverifiable".
This is the text from Bird:
Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin. Beevor estimates that 10,000 died, some murdered, most from suicide. The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher. Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?
So Bird mentions the statistics, but states that they are unverifiable. This includes the 2 million and 100,000 figures; he does not accept these figures as fact since he says perhaps. All of Beevor's rape estimates come from a German book by Sander and Johr (see the citation in his book[36]), which presents estimates from a doctor, and Bird criticizes Beevor for trusting that doctor.
How is the text added to the article a misrepresentation? It only states what Bird says about the statistics and nothing else; it does not state or imply that Bird thinks the scale of the crime was low or anything like that.
The text was first added to Battle of Berlin in 2010.[37]
There was a long discussion on this, see this archive.[38]
These are the comments by Paul Siebert (a user who was well respected but stopped editing):
"In other words, we have the Anglophone scholarly secondary source that confirms the MathFacts' point about the data obtained from a single doctor, and that explicitly states that Beevor's book is not the most accurate source for the rapes in Berlin (although quite good in general)."
"Of course not, because, firstly, for every mathematically educated person the procedure used by Jorh (see above) is a complete nonsense, secondly, journalists do not publish their reviews in scientific journals, so Bird is not a journalist but a scholar... In actuality we have (i) Sander's and Johr's estimations, that have been quoted by other scholars (although with reservations, see, e.g. Grossman); the Sander's and Johr's work meet reliable source criteria so we can use it in the article; (ii) the Beevor's book where some conclusions are drawn, mostly based no Sander's and Johr's findings; this is also a reliable source; and (iii) the Bird's review that states that the rape statistics is unverifiable; this is also a reliable source. Note, we have no sources that either question this Bird's conclusion or state that the Sander's and Johr's data are verifiable. Therefore, we have only minimal freedom of manoeuvre, and any manipulations with these sources would be a synthesis. We have to state that Sander and Johr made estimations that have been quoted by some other authors, although statistics are unverifiable."
Again, the text was in the Berlin article for years, and after as long as the discussion was on that archived page, it is hard to claim that it was sneaked in without consensus. From what I can see the main debate was about where to place this criticism, in the main text or the footnotes. -YMB29 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last May I added the text sourced to Bird to Rape during the occupation of Germany.[39] I added the exact text quoted from Bird, but it was later trimmed down by another user.[40] Since Bird criticizes the statistics used by Beevor in general, including the 2 million figure, and the text does NOT say that Bird thinks the scale is greatly exaggerated, this is also not a misrepresentation. -YMB29 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the subject is the statistics and not Beevor's book, so not stating that the review was positive overall is not cherry picking. -YMB29 (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, a deliberate misrepresentation and distortion of Bird's view would have looked something like this: "Bird thinks the scale of rapes was greatly exaggerated, stating that Beevor's statistics are unverifiable." However, neither I nor Paul Siebert added such badly worded texts to the articles. -YMB29 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the text I added based on Roberts' book (after my partial self-revert):
Historian Geoffrey Roberts writes that the extend of the Red Army's rape is hard to judge. Nazi propaganda was predicting mass rape by Asiatic hordes of "judeo-bolshevism" before the Soviets entered Germany, and, after the war, exaggerated figures were put out to partially exonerate Germany by showing how much its civilians suffered. He notes that the German Army probably committed tens of thousands of rapes on the Eastern Front, but that murder was the more typical crime for them.
This does not say or imply anything about what Roberts thinks the scale is; I did not intend to make it look like he thinks it is low or not high. The point was to show that Nazi propaganda portrayed the Red Army as Asiatic hordes and post-war politics exaggerated the figures to show that the Germans were victims too. Also, the text was meant to explain that the German Army committed these and worse crimes too.
Note that I put this in the Analysis section, and not the main section where the numbers are mentioned.
This is the text I wanted to add to the article just before I got blocked to clarify what Roberts' opinion is on the scale (I found it in his other book, where it is stated a little bit more clearly):
According to Roberts, estimates of the scale of the rapes range from tens of thousands to low millions, and the true figure is probably in between.
If someone believed that I was missing something, I was not against them making changes, or telling me exactly what was misleading (instead of just telling me that I am misrepresenting the source). There was no edit war over this. When I was told the first time on the talk page that the text was not right I made a change myself to address the concerns.[42]
So I think stating that I misrepresented two specific texts on purpose is not a fair observation, especially when it is the main reason for my block. -YMB29 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel an obligation to check this quotation. First of all, here is complete text of this review by Bird. One should always look at the entire text. Did you read it? It is immediately obvious that the two-paragraph quotation of the source by Paul Siebert you refer to here was incorrect. He combined together two paragraphs separated by a large portion of text, but did not indicate "..." between them. Now, after reading the entire review by Bird, it becomes abundantly clear that he provided a highly positive, praising review of the book by Beevor (it ends by words "Beevor's book will remain the last word", etc.), even though the reviewer noted lack of reliable statistical data on the subject. Given that, using this review by Bird to criticize work by Beevor (as you did) was indeed a misinterpretation by taking something you like out of the context - I agree with Nick-D. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what Nick-D said. He assumed that Bird does not criticize the 2 million and 100,000 figures, which is not how I see it, not how Paul Siebert saw it, and apparently not how you see it too.
What you are saying is that I cherry picked by adding only criticism from Bird's review. However, the fact that his review was positive overall has nothing to do with the subject, which was the statistics (not Beevor's book), so mentioning that the review was mostly positive would have been off topic. -YMB29 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may not be objective and therefore will not argue any further. Perhaps the link to the text of full article (above) and the arguments at talk page of Nick-D could help a reviewing admin to independently look at this issue. However, given the ungoing discussion on ANI, I assume that admins are waiting for the official ANI closure prior to doing anything here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you are patiently waiting for them to do something here?
This is what Nick-D said:
Bird actually wrote that "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin" without questioning this, and called the statistics in general "unverifiable" rather than this figure as was wrongly attributed to them.
I don't agree with this interpretation. The fact that Bird says "perhaps" DOES mean that he is questioning these figures. Also, if Bird writes that the statistics are unverifiable in general then obviously that includes the 2 million and 100,000 figures. -YMB29 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not what Nick-D said. He said [43]: "the issue they raise is that it's difficult to verify any particulate figure rather than the scale of the rapes being greatly exaggerated. As such, the statement added to the article misrepresents the source.". And, yes, I must agree with Nick-D after quickly reading the entire review. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is said about what Bird thinks the actual scale was. The subject is the statistics. I or Paul Siebert did not write "Bird questions the scale of the rapes, saying that..."
The purpose of your edit [44] was clearly to show that the scale was greatly exaggerated, especially since you placed him just behind Senyavskaya. Word "also" in your edit places Bird in the same camp as Senyavskaya, but he is not. And that is misrepresentation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was placed after Senyavskaya, because she also criticized the statistics used by Beevor (all the statistics come from a German book by Sander and Johr), see my original edit [45] (before it was trimmed down). -YMB29 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General accusations and reply
OK. Here is the problem. You push your position that the scale of rapes was greatly exaggerated. You do this over and over again, through multiple pages and using different sources. You edit war to push this position. You even use sources that actually tell something different about this (like Bird) to prove your point. But now you tell that "nothing is said about what Bird thinks the actual scale was" to prove that you did not push this view. How anyone can believe you? My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any more arguments and so you resort to general accusations. I don't push anything. I try to add content and sources in accordance with wiki policies, while you are part of a group that actively has been following my edits to remove text and sources for dubious reasons (such as relying on a blog entry).
I hope that the admins note your continual accusations against me even here. Again, you yourself admitted that you are not neutral here. Your quick removal of valid text from multiple articles right after I was blocked is also noted. -YMB29 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your original edit is remarkably similar in tone as the one pointed out by My very best wishes: "The statistics used by Beevor are also questioned by Nicky Bird..." Would you like me to parse it for mass violation of WP:WORDS in order to point out what is wrong with it (outside of WP:FRINGE)? WORDS may only be guidelines, but failing to accurately represent the opinions of the source (i.e., tying them together loosely in order add emphasis to Beevor's work as being all but completely dismissable) is a blatant violation of NPOV. How many more CHERRY picked 'criticisms' of Beevor's stats were you planning to shove in before you broke the pushed the size of the article into needing a split? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like always you are mentioning and linking to a lot of wiki policies that you found, but you fail to use them in coherent arguments.
Bird criticizes Beevor for using unverifiable statistics. That is the only thing that was added. Anything else you accuse me of is your own interpretation.
I only wanted to double check the source and ask what you think about it. You just said that the purpose of this your edit was not to show that the scale of rapes was greatly exaggerated, when in fact that was the purpose of not only this edit, but also of your editing and edit wars in multiple pages. I think this alone justifies the block, although I realize that the block was made also for a number of other reasons, such as inability to work with others, WP:TE, edit wars against consensus and WP:BATTLE. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been edit warring against me for years, going back to when you were part of the EEML and got caught. The last few months this has continued. So you are far from neutral and should not be coming here justifying my block; it only shows that you are trying hard to make sure I am gone for long.
You tell in your collapsed text that "Again, the Bird text said nothing about the scale". Yes, he tells nothing about it, and this is precisely the point. It was you who made it to appear this way (misrepresented Bird's views) by making this edit. First, you placed a quotation by Senyavskaya who claims that mass rapes in Germany were a myth, and then you places a quotation by Bird who "also" (sic!) disagrees with Beevor [about the scale of rapes], although he in fact agrees with Beevor.My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying really hard to justify my block... Again, I hope that admins note this.
Bird who "also" (sic!) disagrees with Beevor [about the scale of rapes] - That is an obvious misrepresentation by you. The text clearly says Bird also criticizes the statistics. -YMB29 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to this edit[46])
But that is precisely what you did in this edit by selectively quoting Bird out of context, placing him directly after Senyavskaya, and telling "also". This way you clearly misrepresented Bird as a supporter of Senyavskaya, who like her, believes that the scale of rapes was greatly exaggerated, while he did not mean it at all. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. Again, Bird is not taken out of context. Nothing is said about the scale. He criticizes the statistics and that is the only thing that is being mentioned, and the only thing he and Senyavskaya agree on. -YMB29 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post in the right section if you don't want your comments moved. You seem to be so concerned that I might be unblocked... Of course if there was real deliberate misrepresentation of sources, others would support a long block for me or anyone, but, as I explained here, there was no misrepresentation. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you decide to open a SPI just because a user leaves a comment on the talk page that points out an obvious fact I have stated before (Solonin is not an academic historian)? This is just further harassment. Again, you show that you are desperate to get me blocked for long. -YMB29 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So was this really necessary? You thought that I was dumb enough to create another account just to post a comment on a talk page... -YMB29 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: I don't think you should have bothered with this based on only one comment.
By the way, you know full well that the text I am accused of misrepresenting[48] was added by another user in 2010 and has been in the article for years (with you being ok with it), yet you are silent over this... -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, you know that I did not misrepresent the sources, at least Bird's view, yet you don't say anything about this. -YMB29 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Long replies
You have opened the door "However, you know that I did not misrepresent the sources" I know nothing of the sort.
you wrote in the ANI (that you opened on 21:05, 12 February 2015) "PBS added the text to the footnote.[225] ...-YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)". I think that this was disingenuous of you because you did not present all the information, but of course ANI arena encourages such behaviour. Now for the full facts:
The edit was made by me at 11:34 on 5 May 2014 to which I wrote an editorial comment "Alternative wording for the Senyavskaya statement, that is a more accurate reflection of what she wrote and is not a synthesis of several sources to advance a point of view"
which was in response to a highly misleading addition by you:
and you reverted the edit I made (to which you linked in the ANI) -- less than on two hours later Revision as of 13:24, 5 May 2014 -- with the comment "Changed the sentence back. This is the wording others commented on. It is not only one historian as you are trying to make it look like. Don't be misleading. It has nothing to do with synthesis. See talk."
It clearly shows that you did not have a consensus to make the changes that you were making (it was explained to you that it was a synthesis) but that you were edit warring to keep you changes (as the history of the article shows). I did not state it at the time because I was under the duty to assume good faith, but unless you are a lot lest clever than I give you credited for, you know that, and you made the synthesis to advance your own personal bias -- which you hold for reasons you have not explained.
Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread; the Soviet military command took strict measures to maintain discipline.
The synthesis is in "other Russian historians" ("one swallow does not a summer make"). The wording I introduced was a quote from one of those sources you presented (which has now been discredited) so that an informed reader could judge for themselves if it was a credible source. The quoted statement was a fair summation of the authors point of view and it made the point that she had explicitly stated that most Russian historians agreed with her:
The Russian historian Elena Senyavskaya has stated that mass rapes did not occur,Elena Senyavskaya cites an official Soviet record of the military prosecutor of the 1st Belorussian Front to support her position as it states that in the seven army 1st Belorussian Front during the period from 22 April to 5 May 1945 124 crimes against civilians were recorded, including 72 of rape. and that "amongst [professional Russian historians] there are no differences of opinion concerning this subject".
That you did not want to use that quote that I think perfectly summed up your on bias, is I think a good example of how you persistently distort the use of sources to advance a point of view and by the 9th of the same month there is no evidence of the edit I made and you bought up in the ANI and you were still engaged changing the text to remove any mention of mass rape in the body of the article claiming you had a consensus to do so.[49] This edit is yet another example of you "misrepresent the sources" and I really think you should be ashamed of yourself.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for misrepresenting my edits like that. It was one thing when you did this on the article's talk page, but to do it here to try to influence admin decision is going too far.
Regrading the removal of the word mass, see here[50]. Mass rape is disputed by a significant amount of reliable sources, so it can't be presented as a fact, and you refused to attribute it properly. Reading the talk page section you linked, this change was supported by two other users.
The point I was making in the ANI thread is that the specific parts that were being removed[51] because I supposedly "sneaked them into the article," were actually added by you[52] and another user[53].
You formulated that sentence (The Russian historian Elena Senyavskaya has stated that mass rapes did not occur... amongst [professional Russian historians] there are no differences of opinion concerning this subject), when you knew full well that Senyavskaya is not the only Russian historian who disputes mass rape. I have pointed you to the sources[54] many times, but you largely ignored them.
I wanted to quote the Russian historians individually, but you said that is giving them undue weight, so I formulated that sentence (Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements...).
The part that says "other Russian historians" is not synthesis, as this is not only directly supported by the quotes from other Russian historians linked above, but quotes from Western sources[55], which again you largely ignored.
You attempted to make it look like it was only one crazy Russian historian arguing against mass rape, when you were aware that this is not the case. So the misrepresentation here is solely on you. -YMB29 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is Senyavskaya discredited? Look at this section[56]. I have already brought this to your attention before on the Berlin article's talk page (I can find the diff if you want), but once again you ignored this. -YMB29 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My earlier comment (you know that I did not misrepresent the sources, at least Bird's view, yet you don't say anything about this) was referring to the fact that you know that I was not the one who added Bird's text, which is the main reason for my block. You participated in the discussion with Paul Siebert before he added it, and were ok with the text as long as it was in the footnotes. So if you were an objective admin, you would mention this, regardless if you think there are other problems with me. -YMB29 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You write It was one thing when you did this on the article's talk page, but to do it here to try to influence admin decision is going too far. No it is not, as I have no longer any reason to assume good faith, as the opinion I formed when you reverted back in your first edited the Battle of Berlin page and argued strongly for it on the article's talk page, has been confirmed by many other editors: That you edit in bad faith to force through what I think is a biased POV. I refrained from saying so until this ANI, because I have been following the behavioural guideline and assuming good faith, but as the guideline says "This [Assume good faith] guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary".
I told you above that you had four choices, and offered you a way out of an indefinite block, but since then you have not shown any understanding of why you were blocked or proposed any real strategy for encouraging an admin to unblock you. I was not going to comment on your bias and deliberate misrepresentation of sources but neither am I going to remain silent while you make statements such as However, you know that I did not misrepresent the sources" because you do misrepresent the sources. If you did not want me to comment, then you should have restrained yourself from making such a comment. But I think that one of the problems you have is that you do not know when to stop. The whole idea of this section was to keep it brief as the last admin who reviewed you last unblock request suggested; but here were are again with a wall of text, and I will not be at all surprised if you append yet more text after this comment. -- PBS (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has grown thanks to you...
As I have shown above, it was you who deliberately misrepresented sources with regard to Senyavskaya and Russian historians. There was no excuse since you knew that it was not only Senyavskaya's view.
Regarding my first edit, my attempt was to attribute each statement to each of the sources cited. You made it clear that you did not agree with that, so I dropped that idea; I don't know why you keep bringing this up.
I told you that when I said "However, you know that I did not misrepresent the sources," I was referring to Bird's text, which you know is not a misrepresentation. You know that I am right about this, but again, as it is common with you, you simply ignore what proves me right. -YMB29 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Nick-D's analysis of Bird's text[57] and my comments:
[58] This is an accurate quote from the book review, but is only referring to Beevor and not criticising the statistics more generally as was implied.
No, the statistics that Beevor and other authors use all come from the German book BeFreier und Befreite (by Sander and Johr) and were calculated by a German doctor, see Beevor's citation in his book (Dr. Gerhard Reichling, "Charite and Kaiserin Auguste Victoria" are the clinics whose data was used). Perhaps a little background knowledge would have helped understand this better.
Indeed, immediately above this quote the Bird writes that "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped" and "The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher" without stating that these figures are incorrect or not feasible
This is also incorrect, see the full quote:
Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin. Beevor estimates that 10,000 died, some murdered, most from suicide. The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher. Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?
Bird does criticize the 2 million, 100,000 and 1.4 million figures. The fact that he says perhaps means he doubts them. Immediately after he states that "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable." Also, the next sentence says that "Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor," and like I explained above, all the rape estimates come from that doctor. So there can't be any doubt that Bird criticizes all the mentioned figures.
Furthermore, if Nick-D thought that Bird criticizes only the statistics mentioned in the last sentence, these statistics (specifically 90% of rape victims had abortions and 8.7% of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers) were used to derive the 100,000, 1.4 million and 2 million figures. This was discussed here. So even if one thinks that Bird is criticizing only the figures in the last sentence, he of course is also criticizing the other figures that were derived from these.
the issue they raise is that it's difficult to verify any particulate figure rather than the scale of the rapes greatly exaggerated. As such, the statement added to the article misrepresents the source.
The text (In his review of Beevor's book, Nicky Bird also criticizes the statistics, stating that... followed by the quote) does not say or imply anything about the scale "being greatly exaggerated." It only mentions the statistics, which Bird does criticize.
[59] this is also unacceptable for similar reasons to reasons above: Bird actually wrote that "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin" without questioning this, and called the statistics in general "unverifiable" rather than this figure as was wrongly attributed to them. I can see no good faith way this mistake could have been made: it's an obvious distortion of the source.
Again like I said above, Bird does criticize all the stated figures (including the 2 million one), which come from a single source.
Also, Nick-D did not take into account that the text was first added back in 2010 by another user[60] after a lengthy discussion, and it has been in the article all these years. There was consensus to add the text and the user who did it had a good reputation.
From comparing this with the source, it's also clear to me that the source is being misrepresented. Roberts does indeed state that it's difficult to judge how many rapes took place and argues that estimates have been exaggerated to partially exonerate Germany. However, he also states that "hundreds of thousands of rapes in Germany" took place (and endorses the views of historian who estimates that the number may have been as high as 2 million),
That is a wrong way of putting it. Roberts quotes Naimark who says that it may have been 2 million after mentioning lower figures,[62] but that does not mean Roberts endorses this figure of 2 million. He rather endorses Naimark's view that the estimates range from tens of thousands to two million, with hundreds of thousands being the most realistic estimated range. In his other book he makes this clear.[63]
Also, Roberts quoting a historian who says that estimates range from tens of thousands to two million only confirms that the scale is hard to judge. It is not like Roberts says that there is an accurate figure; hundreds of thousands (which itself is a huge range) is just the estimate Roberts and Naimark think is more likely to be close to being correct.
with this being much higher than the number which would be "normal" [his word] for a force of this size, and the focus of his analysis is what lead to such conduct. I can see no good reason for omitting this when discussing his analysis.
The point that Roberts makes is that the scale of the crime was exaggerated for political reasons and that is what I originally wanted to show, because that makes him stand out from other Western sources cited on this issue. The point was to add something new to the article that has not been mentioned before. A lot of things that Roberts says were well covered in the article by other sources. For example, as mentioned above, his position on the scale of the crimes is based on Naimark, who was already cited in the article. In fact the same exact quote from Naimark's book that Roberts uses is paraphrased in the article.
Yes, Roberts does believe that the scale was most likely high, even though there are exaggerations. However, I did not say or imply that Roberts thinks it is low or normal. To say that I intentionally omitted something to imply that Roberts thinks the scale was not high is really stretching it and not showing good faith.
There was no misrepresentation. What I added is exactly what Roberts says. If Nick-D was saying that there was cherry picking, well that is not just about omitting something. Cherry picking is omitting contradictory information with regard to what is being added. I did not exclude any contradictory information.
You could say that I also omitted a lot of things Roberts says, including statements that actually make the Red Army look better in regard to this topic,[64] but again that has nothing to do with cherry picking.
This earlier edit was much worse - saying only that "Roberts concludes that, given the scale of the conlfict and the size of the territory involved, probably tens of thousands of rapes were normal for such a conquering force as the Red Army" deliberately misrepresents his argument that the Red Army's conduct was much worse than "normal" conduct for such a force. Again, I can't see any way that this could have been the result of a good faith mistake, especially given the agenda being advanced.
Saying that I tried to advance an agenda further shows that Nick-D had no good faith towards me after he wrongly decided earlier that I misrepresented Bird's text.
If it was not a good faith mistake then why did I remove the sentence[65] when it was brought up on the talk page? I realized that it might be misinterpreted to mean that tens of thousands applies to the Red Army too, so I removed it. This only shows that I had no intention to misrepresent the source.
There was only one issue with the text and I addressed it. Even if Nick-D or someone else thought that something was wrong with the text after I made the change, I don't understand how they can say that I intentionally misrepresented Roberts' view, especially given that I made that partial self-revert. At most this was simply a content dispute. Again, it all comes down to Bird's text. Nick-D decided that I misrepresented it and he quickly decided that with Roberts' text I am continuing the misrepresentation of sources; he did not even look at the fact that I made a second edit to make sure there was no misrepresentation.
These are the calls for a topic ban before the block and my comments:
Support topic bans on all editors active in this dispute. I am not a fan of the "block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" approach, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Regarding Volunteer Marek, this user has been nothing but a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improve an article, so a topic ban on him would greatly improve the editing environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[66]
This was obviously directed at the other user.
Support WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for YMB29. Per everything I said above and based on the diffs I have looked fully into the edits YMB29 is complaining about being wrong were correct:
Yep cherrypicked the reviewer does not say his methods call into question the magnitude of the rapes as this quote seems to imply.
Removing the weasaly "A frequently iterated claim that the] war time rapes had been surrounded by decades of silence." and replacing it with "The" does not violate WP:MOSINTRO
Albert Axell is not a historian by any accademic measure.
I see no point in continuing through the rest, I want to go to bed. Volunteer Marek and the others(not going to list them VM is the one brought up by name in the sanction) may have been UNCIVIL but I can not say I would have remained civil in the same situation. It would be great if we had a civility policy with teath but we do not. Topic banning all the other editors for responding to a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor is extreme. I am sure VM and the others can be a real pain in the ass but this is not the issue to topic ban them over. JBH (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[67]
This user showed up to the ANI claiming that he is neutral, but his comments show that this is not true. Not only the tone of his comments did not show neutrality (we discussed that here), but also his analysis of the dispute like the one above:
I was not the one who added Dyukov and I later agreed to have him removed. However, my point was that if Dyukov is a revisionist then there should not be a problem finding a source for that, otherwise it is a WP:BLP violation. Someone changed the main article on Dyukov about a week before this ANI thread to say that he is an obvious revisionist, instead of attributing this to an Estonian source like before[68]; this is a WP:BLP violation.
This is again about Bird's text. There was no cherry-picking and nothing was said about the "magnitude of the rapes." The subject was the statistics and the review does criticize them, for more see here.
This more than anything else proves my point that the user did not know what he was talking about. He picked the wrong sentence in the diff... The sentence he mentioned was not disputed.
If Axell cannot be called a historian, provide a source for that. I provided sources that say he is a historian,[69][70][71] and what sources say is more important than what some users think.
There are many sources that prove that it is not just "some" Russian historians who dispute mass rape (not rapes as was wrongly written),[72] but this user of course did not bother to check.
I did not want to respond in detail to his walls of text at first, because that would mean posting walls of text of my own in a thread that was quickly getting too long, and also because I felt that it was obvious that he was simply advocating for the other users while pretending to be neutral.
Support topic ban for User:YMB29 from this issue. Currently he is again repeating the same behaviour that User:JBH has identified at my talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[73]
I am not sure why he thought my behavior at his talk page was disruptive.[74] I was the one who came to his talk page to simply notify him of what was happening in the Berlin article, but he did not get the points I was making and decided that I was causing trouble, probably because there were three users removing text and only I was trying to restore it. This is a very simplistic approach to determining consensus. More about this is here.
Also, him repeating the claim (on his talk page) that I was somehow trying to invalidate "Western scholarly consensus," shows that he did not pay attention to what I was saying on the talk page.
If you are going to quote me include the diff otherwise it looks like I wrote the comment here, since you copied my signature as well, and removes context. Please ping me as well if you are going to discuss my edits, it is only polite. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How did you even know about this so fast? Do you have my talk page on your watchlist?
The diffs are added. Your comment and those of others are in small and italic font, so I think it is obvious that you did not post here.
This section is basically for any admins who may want to review the ANI thread when looking at my block. If you want to discuss anything mentioned above, you can do that here. -YMB29 (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting in the diff. I have gotten kind of picky about quotes and context from other experiences here. Yes, your talk page, and any place I have made a lot of edits is on my watch list. I have no comments on the block issue, that is between you and the admins. Have a good day/night. Jbh (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight: I am not denying that there are problems. I can admit problems with some users and probably there are some reverts that I should not have made. I can accept a block or a topic ban if it is for something I did, but in this case I can honestly say that I was not trying to intentionally misrepresent sources.
Did you read my explanation regarding Bird's text[75]? Again, the text was added by another user after a long discussion in 2010 and has been in the article all this time. I think there was a misunderstanding of the text and my actions by Nick-D, but my attempt to explain this to him resulted in an infinite block.
I have already been blocked for almost a month. What do you suggest I should do? Is there a way to have uninvolved admins or users look at the text and comment on it? -YMB29 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight: Ok, I will file a new appeal, but is there a reason I should use UTRS? I thought it is only used when talk page access is revoked. Do you think it will help keep the appeal focused? -YMB29 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know if UTRS will hear an appeal if talk page access unless talk page access is revoked, but, yes, I think there's too much information on this page, and that a more focussed approach would be better. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2015 (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).
I was advised to create another unblock request that is more focused on the issue and is not drowned in comments. I was blocked for intentionally misrepresenting sources, but I believe that this is not a fair decision. I never tried to do this and never will. My block was then extended to indefinite, because I tried to explain that there was no misrepresentation, especially intentional, to the blocking admin, but he interpreted this as continuation of disruption.
The main reason for my block is the text sourced to Bird. I think the blocking admin (Nick-D) misunderstood the source and text I was trying to restore, and I ask that an uninvolved admin or admins review Nick-D's decision, that it was a misrepresentation of the author's view. I explain everything in detail and provide the text and quote from the source here[76]. My main points are:
The text was first added by another user, who I don't think can be suspected of mischief, in 2010[77] after a long discussion, and it has been in the Battle of Berlin article for almost five years with no one objecting.
The text does not say or imply anything the author (Bird) does not directly state. He criticizes the statistics as unverifiable and that is the only thing the text says.
I could understand if Nick-D would just disagree with me on this text, but to say that I intentionally distorted the source to push a POV is unfair, especially since I am not the one who first added the source and text. The dispute with other users was not even about the text saying or implying something that Bird does not state; they claimed that I was cherry picking criticism from a book review that was mostly positive.[78][79] I don't agree with this also, because the subject was not the book, but the statistics, which Bird does criticize. I think this is a content dispute that can be settled through dispute resolution; there was no need to block me over this, especially indefinitely.
Another piece of sourced text was also mentioned, but I think it would be a non-issue if Nick-D did not already decide to block me for Bird's text (he did not assume good faith as a result). In this case, I also did not intend to imply anything the author does not state, and I corrected an unintentional error I made. For more see here[80].
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.
The block was not imposed because of the ANI thread. Most there were supporting additional action, because they assumed that I was really guilty of misrepresenting sources. If a user, especially one I had disputes with, intentionally misrepresented sources, I would probably do the same. However, you know that I did not misrepresent the sources, at least Bird's view, yet you don't say anything about this. -YMB29 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Can you explain what you mean by plethora of evidence? If you think I did something wrong and want me to avoid repeating it in the future, then you should tell me what exactly I did wrong. I believe there was a misunderstanding of my edits.
Did you look at the points I made[81]? All I ask is for someone to look at my evidence and discuss the text issues with me. -YMB29 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight: I created a request that was more focused on the issue as you suggested, but it does not look like the admin above looked at the issue itself. I don't understand what he means and he has not clarified his statement.
All I am asking is for my block to be properly reviewed, as well as the decision to extend it to indefinite just because I tried to explain and present evidence.
I don't think there is a way to review the block without looking at the texts and sources[82] that I am accused of deliberately misrepresenting. Can you look at this carefully when you have time? -YMB29 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight, are you going to look at my block when you have time or should I create another unblock request? Can you at least suggest what I should do now? I have already been blocked for a long time and no one seems to want to look at my arguments and evidence. -YMB29 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2015 (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).
It was suggested that I create another unblock request. I was blocked for misrepresenting sources, but the admin who blocked me misunderstood the source and text I was trying to restore. He also did not consider that the source and text were actually first introduced by a well respected user in 2010[83] after a long discussion on the talk page, and they have been in the article for almost five years. As a result of all this, the admin decided that I was pushing some agenda and did not have any good faith towards me. Here is his analysis and my comments.[84]
Also, the block was extended to indefinite just because I tried to explain and present evidence[85] after being blocked.
All I ask is for the block to be properly reviewed (as well as the decision to extend it to indefinite), which I think cannot be done without looking at the article texts and sources I am accused of misrepresenting. So far it does not look like anyone looked at my evidence and considered my arguments. -YMB29 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You did misrepresent the source in this edit, giving an impression contrary to what the author actually says, proceeded to selectively quote it here, again misrepresenting the point made by the source, and then incorrectly tried to blame another editor for your issues on this very page. Huon (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (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.
There was consensus at the ANI after you and Buckshot06 made me look like a trouble maker. Of course others would want me blocked for a long time when they see that I was blocked for misrepresenting sources. However, I did NOT misrepresent the sources.
Did you read my analysis of your analysis[86]? You misunderstood what Bird is saying (he DOES criticize the 2 million and 1.4 million figures) and then assumed nothing but bad faith. Instead of discussing the issues with me, you did not want to hear me out and extended the block to indefinite.
I don't think you could suspect Paul Siebert, who first added the source and text, of POV-pushing. That material was added to the Berlin article with consensus and was undisputed for almost five years (in the other article for about nine months). You don't see anything wrong with a couple of users removing it, falsely claiming that I sneaked it in without consensus? It was properly cited and had consensus, so the burden was on them to prove that it is inaccurate or at least try to discuss it properly (per WP:BRD). -YMB29 (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More about the ANI
YMB29 you wrote There was consensus at the ANI after you and Buckshot06 made me look like a trouble maker, but there was a consensus for a topic ban at ANI before the blocks.
Calls for a topic ban before block
Support topic bans on all editors active in this dispute -- Viriditas 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Support WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for YMB29. -- JBH 04:14, 13 February 2015
Support topic ban for User:YMB29 from this issue. -- Buckshot06 07:59, 13 February 2015
----
Blocks
22:08, 13 February 2015 Buckshot06 changed block settings for YMB29 with an expiry time of 1 month (Disruptive editing: Misrepresenting sources. This user has been blocked several times for short periods, without any change apparent in his behaviour. Longer blocks now need to be considered.)
06:25, 14 February 2015 Nick-D changed block settings for YMB29 with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing: Misrepresenting sources. Extending block duration to indefinite as this is continuing while blocked)
-----
Calls for a topic ban after block
Support topic ban under WP:ARBEE per PBS. This farce has gone on long enough. -- RGloucester 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Support topic ban for User:YMB29 -- Nick-D 02:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Support topic ban --Iryna Harpy 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Support block by Nick-D. -- My very best wishes
If it is decided to shorten the length of the block then he should be topic ban. -- Kierzek 22:15, 21 February 2015
So what is your point? Most of the calls for a ban were after the block. Also, the first user to comment just said to topic ban everyone involved in general and his comment was more directed at the other user, not me. Maybe if there was no block, others would not have called for a ban or would have commented against one for me. The block did influence this.
I was not blocked because of the ANI thread. The unblock request is for Nick-D's decision to block me (he originally blocked me for a week and then later extended the block to indefinite). -YMB29 (talk)
Since the ANI thread was mentioned here, I added some important notes about the first few comments calling for a ban (before the block),[87] but, again, that ANI thread is not the reason I am blocked. -YMB29 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Do you at least see that I did not misrepresent Bird's text? That was the main reason for my block.
As for Roberts' text, I removed the disputed sentence myself when I realized that it did not sound right.[88] How can you hold this against me? This shows that I was willing to listen and understand what others have to say. This was not an attempt to misquote the source. I provided the sentences that were asked for. Maybe I should have quoted more of the text or provided a link to the page, but why would I deliberately misquote a book that was available online?
You think an indefinite block is justified for this? -YMB29 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in arguing which source you blatantly misrepresented to push a certain point of view, and I think an indefinite block is entirely justified for conduct such as yours. Huon (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, it is not about arguing. If the admin made a mistake interpreting a source, that is important to consider when reviewing the block.
In your decline reason, you linked to text that I added, but I corrected it myself later[89]; this is important to consider too.
I am not a POV pusher. I was always willing to compromise and if I made mistakes, I was willing to correct them myself. If you need any evidence of this, I can provide it. So I am perplexed why you and some other admins are not willing to listen to me and look at my evidence. -YMB29 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I don't understand why Nick-D is so concerned about me creating unblock requests, if he thinks his decisions are correct.
For the second and third requests, I asked first if I should create them and it was suggested that I should (look at the sections above). -YMB29 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YMB29, I got your email. Sorry, but I don't think that there's anything that I can do to help. Looking at the discussion here and at ANI, I'm afraid that the consensus seems to be that your block should stand, and I don't have the power to unblock you against consensus. It is onerous, I know, but Ed's suggestion of the standard offer is probably the way to go here. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪23:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius: I was not blocked because of the ANI. The discussion there was about a topic ban, not an indefinite block, and there was consensus only after I was blocked for "misrepresenting sources." This was not a community ban. The decision to block and extend to indefinite was taken by an admin.
I was not asking you to unblock me, but I wanted to know if there is a way to have uninvolved users comment on the source and article text I am accused of misrepresenting. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius: So there is no way to get neutral users to comment on the text issue? The source and text were first introduced to Battle of Berlin by a respected user[91] (you may remember him from the Holodomor mediation). The sourced text was added with consensus and was undisputed for almost five years. So it is not like it was some obvious crap that I pushed into the article just before being blocked. -YMB29 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider conditional unblock with temporary topic ban
I understand your feeling. I Have been in your shoes. However you have to also understand that you (or me) are not there to Save the World Peace and Make Truth Triumph in one day and alone. Sometimes even a smartest person is not heard after he makes several wrong moves; no matter how right he is, nobody listens to him. So, my advise is, just let it go. If you are right, sooner or later someone else will pursue your point, hopefully with more success. I am sure you can contribute to wikipedia in some other places.
Therefore I would suggest you to request the unblock with the promise not to edit in the areas of your strong feelings, for, say one year. Experience shows that strong feelings harm a wikipedian in at least two ways: first, even the most neutral person becomes biased; second, oftentimes he becomes easily manipulated by the opponents into all kind of blockable behavior. - üser:Altenmann >t02:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Don't waste time contesting the block. You pissed some people off. Whether you are right or wrong, just live with it. Keep in mind that at this moment drama is distracting other wikipedians from what they are supposed to do: editing. Sorry to be harsh, but you (and me) are dispensable. So the only way is either to forget wikipedia or to build your reputation back. - üser:Altenmann >t02:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Sorry, I did not directly address your request "whether or not the article text reflects what the source says". I could, but that's not the point I see here at the moment. Just forget it for a while and do something less stressful. - üser:Altenmann >t02:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The block is not new. It has been almost a year... I am not stressed out about this, but I do think the situation is ridiculous.
I understand what you are saying, but deliberately misrepresenting sources is a serious offense; I don't see why I have to accept it and try to build my reputation back when I did not do this.
For me it is important to clear the accusations against me; I am not really interested in editing otherwise.
Since the block I have been explaining and presenting evidence, like a blocked user is supposed to do. However, all this has resulted in is the block being extended to indefinite and other admins ignoring what I write. I can still try appealing to ArbCom, but I am not sure what to expect from them.
I thought that if no admin is listening to me, maybe they may listen to what others have to say, so that is why I asked you and some others to comment on the text issue. -YMB29 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to highlight the main reason for my block again, here are the source and the article texts that cite it. After analyzing them, an admin decided that I should be blocked.[92]
Quote from the source (Nicky Bird's book review): Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin. Beevor estimates that 10,000 died, some murdered, most from suicide. The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher. Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?
Although all sources agree that rapes occurred, the numbers put forward are estimates. A frequently quoted number is that 100,000 women in Berlin were raped by soldiers of the Red Army (Helke Sander & Barbara Johr: BeFreier und Befreite, Fischer, Frankfurt 2005), but this estimate has been questioned by Nicky Bird (Nicky Bird, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct. 2002), pp. 914–916), who characterises the statistics as "unverifiable".[93]
In his review of Beevor's book, Nicky Bird also criticizes the statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"[95]
The text was originally added to Battle of Berlin in 2010[97] with consensus after a long discussion, and it has been in the article for years.
The rape statistics come from a German book that cites Dr. Gerhard Reichling's analysis of data from a Berlin hospital (or two hospitals - Charite and Kaiserin Auguste Victoria).[98]
The statistics mentioned by Bird in the last sentence above (specifically the percent of rape victims who had abortions and percent of children born in 1946 who had Russian fathers) were used to derive the 100,000 and 2 million figures (this was discussed here).
I can't see how anyone can say that I misrepresented Bird's view, especially given the background information. -YMB29 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above analysis, as I have already said before. The crux of the above issue simply refers to the fact that Nicky Bird wrote that in Beever's book "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable", and the text inserted into the Wikipedia article said that this same estimate "has been questioned by Nicky Bird". As noted, at one point Nicky Bird's article was directly quoted so that readers could understand his viewpoint in his own words. YMB29 could possibly have been sanctioned for many things, but I still can't understand how an indefinite ban for misrepresentation was justified. I wonder if YMB29's ban can be reduced to "time served"?CurtisNaito (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curtis, YMB29 was not blocked for an indefinite period (not banned) for one edit, or such a simple reason: the block was for misrepresenting multiple sources to push a particular viewpoint. Please see User talk:Nick-D/Archive 14#User:YMB29 and the various related talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text above is the reason you decided that I should be blocked, before even looking at the other text.[99] So it is correct to say that it is the main reason for the block.
The other text sourced to Roberts would not even have been an issue if you did not decide that I misrepresented the source above (Bird).
In the case of Roberts' text, like I said many times, I removed the disputed sentence immediately after I realized the problem,[100] which alone shows that I did not deliberately intend to misrepresent the source.
Also, the reason you extended the block to indefinite was because I provided evidence and tried to explain to you that I did not misrepresent sources.[101] I thought that providing evidence and explanations is what a blocked user is supposed to do, instead of wikilawyering or blaming others... -YMB29 (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2015 (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).
I was blocked for "deliberately misrepresenting sources," but I did not misrepresent the sources. I have never done this before and never will. A new user would attempt to do something this silly, but I have been here long enough to know and understand what proper behavior here is.
The main reason I am blocked is text cited to a book review by N. Bird; it was decided that I should be blocked before anything else was reviewed.[102] However, there was a misunderstanding of what the source is saying when the decision was made, possibly because important background information both on the subject and the history of this sourced text was not known to the admin. The most obvious fact overlooked is that the text cited to that source was actually first introduced back in 2010; it was added with consensus after a long discussion and had been in the Battle of Berlin article since 2010! This was completely ignored even when I brought it up right after the block. For more details and diffs, see the section above.
I think that I explain the issue in the section linked above as briefly and clearly as possible. I don't know what else I can add. It should be clear that nothing is wrong with the text in question, and the fact that it was added with consensus and had been in the Berlin article for years confirms this. If there is still doubt, I am willing to have an RfC or at least some kind of feedback from uninvolved users for this.
The only other source I am accused of misrepresenting is a book by G. Roberts. I think it would not even have been an issue if I was not accused of misrepresenting the first source. The only thing wrong with the new text I added was that it contained a sentence that could have been misunderstood to imply something it was not supposed to. However, as soon as I realized the problem, I immediately removed the sentence myself.[103] This alone shows that I did not deliberately intend to misrepresent the source. This also shows that I responded to talk page discussion to try to settle a dispute[104] like a normal user is supposed to do. However, the fact that I had corrected the issue was overlooked, and my original edit was still held against me, probably because the admin had already decided that I am pushing an agenda and should be blocked for the previous source and text. I don't understand how someone can reference an edit I made while ignoring the edit that came right after. Even the last admin who reviewed the block did this.
It is important to note that the only reason the block was extended to indefinite was because I provided evidence and tried to explain to the admin that I did not misrepresent sources.[105] To me this decision to extend the block is very strange, since I thought that providing evidence and explanations is what a blocked user is supposed to do, instead of wikilawyering or blaming others.
I have presented enough evidence to show that I did not deliberately misrepresent sources, but so far I had not had much luck getting admins to look at and seriously consider my evidence.
Furthermore, I could ask for a standard offer as some have suggested. However, I am not going to admit to doing something I did not do just so that I could edit again. For me it is important to clear the accusations against me. I am not interested in getting back to editing otherwise. -YMB29 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I have been completely uninvolved in this issue so far, but having read quite a lot of the history of it now, I see clear misrepresentations of sources here - and with the amount of discussion it has generated, I can't see how it can be anything other than either deliberate or some sort of blank spot in your ability to comprehend clear and simple explanations. I either case, my suggestion would be that you make a commitment not to edit in these contentious areas at all, as I can't see an unblock request being successful otherwise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2016 (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.
@Boing! said Zebedee: Did you look at my evidence carefully, specifically this section? I also feel that there are problems with comprehending clear and simple explanations and evidence that I have provided.
The text says exactly what the source does and I provided diffs and links to sources to show that.
I also provided diffs to show that the text was added with consensus after a lengthy discussion (the text was then in the article for years). This further proves that there is nothing wrong with it. So I can't understand why I am accused of misrepresentation.
It seems that you are hesitant to go into the specifics and go by what some others have said, but in this case it is important to look at the details.
Can you explain to me how what I am saying is wrong exactly?
For example, can you tell me how this edit[106] and this disscussion[107] (I know it is long, but starting from the edit at 04:02, 23 May 2010 by Paul Siebert) not prove that the text was added with consensus back in 2010?
Nick-D says that the author does not question the figure of 2 million, but when the author writes "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable" what does he refer to (the full quote is again in this section)?
I think if someone would be willing to discuss the issues with me, I can explain what I mean (if it is not clear from the evidence I have provided). -YMB29 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it carefully, I carefully considered the arguments, and I largely agreed with those who disagreed with you. What I will not do now is revisit and re-analyze every word of the argument, and I suggest that your doing it will not benefit you. You are, of course, welcome to make another unblock request for another admin to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Ok, maybe I will try another unblock request soon, but the result will most likely be the same, as admins don't seem to take my arguments seriously since I challenge the blocking admin's decision.
I am not doubting you when you say that you carefully read and considered my arguments and I was not asking you to re-analyze every word, but I can't understand how some obvious things, like diffs showing that the text was discussed and added with consensus, did not convince you.
I was hoping that you can explain to me what I am missing. Or maybe you can suggest how I can get neutral input on this (from users who have time to look at and discuss the details). -YMB29 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think you already have had plenty of neutral input. I also, honestly, think you are wrong that admins react badly simply to your challenging the blocking admin's decision - I did also review the previous unblock requests, and I really didn't see that. Anyway, that is about all I can offer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well one admin (second unblock request) did not even respond when I asked him to clarify his vague statement that there is plenty of evidence that I am guilty; he is also close to the admin who placed the block (judging by their interaction on their talk pages), so I am not sure if it was even fair that he reviewed the block. Another admin (third request), as I pointed out in the unblock request above, referenced an edit I made and a dispute I was in, but ignored the edit I made right after (to correct the issue) and the fact that I made an effort to resolve the dispute. He also ignored the main text I was blocked for and was somewhat hostile in his tone (unlike you).
All the unblock requests including yours have overlooked obvious facts that I have pointed out and that are backed with diffs and links to sources. No admin, including you and the admin who placed the block, has been willing to discuss the details and the issues I have raised.
So that is why I have concluded that I have not been taken seriously when I challenge the decision that led to the block. -YMB29 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make one final comment, and then I really am done here. In reviewing the block and your unblock request, I do not believe it is necessary for me to re-discuss the details (inc diffs and sources) from scratch again when they have already been discussed several times by others. I reviewed the previous discussions of those sources and diffs, and I disagreed with your arguments and agreed with the arguments of others - and holding the same discussion again will not change that opinion. Now, you are welcome to disagree with me and welcome to disagree with my review methods, of course... and you know where the unblock template is to ask someone else for a review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that if you, or anyone else, really understood and seriously considered my arguments and evidence, you would be able to discuss some specifics, not everything, but at least some of the main points I made. Most of the points I made since the block were not addressed by anyone.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. Even though I don't think this review was fair, you were more helpful than the previous two admins who reviewed the block. -YMB29 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, YMB29. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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).
After several unsuccessful unblock attempts, I am going to be to the point and straightforward here.
I got blocked primarily for restoring these related texts (after reviewing them an admin decided that I should be blocked[108]):
article texts
Although all sources agree that rapes occurred, the numbers put forward are estimates. A frequently quoted number is that 100,000 women in Berlin were raped by soldiers of the Red Army (Helke Sander & Barbara Johr: BeFreier und Befreite, Fischer, Frankfurt 2005), but this estimate has been questioned by Nicky Bird (Nicky Bird, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct. 2002), pp. 914–916), who characterises the statistics as "unverifiable".[109]
In his review of Beevor's book, Nicky Bird also criticizes the statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?[110] (my original edit for this article had the longer, full quote[111])
Quote from the source on which the texts are based:
source quote
Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin. Beevor estimates that 10,000 died, some murdered, most from suicide. The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher. Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?
The admin who placed the block decided that the article texts misrepresent the source, in particular that the author does not criticize the 100,000 (mentioned in the Berlin article) and 2 million (mentioned in the German occupation article) figures:
Bird writes that "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped" and "The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher" without stating that these figures are incorrect or not feasible
Bird actually wrote that "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin" without questioning this, and called the statistics in general "unverifiable" rather than this figure as was wrongly attributed to them. [112]
This is simply incorrect. The fact that the author says "perhaps" in the beginning indicates that he has doubts about the figures, and then he directly says "statistics proliferate and are unverifiable." The figures are part of the statistics the author is referring to, not separate from them. I don't know what to say. This is just basic reading comprehension.
Also, the percentages in the last sentence (90% of women had abortions, 8.7% of children had Russian fathers) were used to derive the 100,000 and 2 million figures, which was discussed here[113]. So there is no way the author can criticize these percentage figures, while not criticizing the figures directly derived from them. This is just common sense.
Furthermore, text cited to that source was originally added with consensus[114] after a long discussion[115] back in 2010! I was not even involved in this. The text was then in the article for years.
Below are some of the comments from the discussion. No one questioned the fact that Bird's book review is a reliable source that criticizes the estimated numbers. The discussion was about the wording of the text that is to be added to the article and where to place it.
discussion details
...for every mathematically educated person the procedure used by Jorh (see above) is a complete nonsense, secondly, journalists do not publish their reviews in scientific journals, so Bird is not a journalist but a scholar... In actuality we have (i) Sander's and Johr's estimations, that have been quoted by other scholars (although with reservations, see, e.g. Grossman); the Sander's and Johr's work meet reliable source criteria so we can use it in the article; (ii) the Beevor's book where some conclusions are drawn, mostly based no Sander's and Johr's findings; this is also a reliable source; and (iii) the Bird's review that states that the rape statistics is unverifiable; this is also a reliable source. Note, we have no sources that either question this Bird's conclusion or state that the Sander's and Johr's data are verifiable. Therefore, we have only minimal freedom of manoeuvre, and any manipulations with these sources would be a synthesis. We have to state that Sander and Johr made estimations that have been quoted by some other authors, although statistics are unverifiable.[116]
...all the sources which contain figures state they are estimations. And to reiterate, the only source which states the statistics are unverifiable is Bird, so having unverifiable according to the others would be incorrect.[117]
If editors want to mention the original source for the numbers and the queries about their validity I suggest it is placed in a group=nb.[118]
The text cited to Bird that made it into the article as a result of this discussion is practically the same as the text above that I tried to restore:
This estimate was been questioned by Nicky Bird (Nicky Bird, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct., 2002), pp. 914-916) who characterized this statistics as "unverefiable"[119]
this estimate has been questioned by Nicky Bird (Nicky Bird, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct. 2002), pp. 914–916), who characterises the statistics as "unverifiable"[120]
When I brought this up to the admin, his reply was that I was blaming someone else:
...even if I was to accept your argument, you're the one who recently re-added it despite having apparently having access to the reference and you're responsible for this as well anyway per WP:PROVEIT.[121]
Talk about misrepresentation, this completely misrepresents the point I was making. I was not blaming it on someone else; the point was and is that there was clear consensus for the text to be in the article, which proves that there is nothing wrong with it.
I can go on, but I think this is enough to show that the accusation that I deliberately misrepresented sources is baseless.
So far my arguments and evidence have not been taken seriously. I am challenging an admin's decision and I know that admins are hesitant to undo or question an action of another admin.
I would think that as part of an independent block review, anyone reviewing the block would have to check the texts and sources themselves to see if I actually misrepresented something (not to even speak of doing this deliberately), without just assuming that the blocking admin is correct, or going by what others have said. The admins who reviewed the block so far have for some reason avoided discussing the actual text issues I am blocked over. The general message has been "you misrepresented sources; the details don't matter"... Well the details do matter, especially for a block like this that is about content, and I don't see how facts that I brought up above can be ignored.
I realize that I probably would have been unblocked long ago if I had asked for a standard offer or accepted a topic ban, but I am not going to admit to doing something I did not do. The blocking admin made an obvious mistake as the evidence above clearly shows. It is ridiculous that this has gone on for so long. -YMB29 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
The one part of your defence that I am prepared to accept is your statement that you have not deliberately misrepresented sources. Having extensively read your comments on this matter, both on this page and elsewhere, I believe that it was not deliberate at all, that you are perfectly sincere, and that you really cannot see the fallacies in your position. I fully agree with your assertion that "there are problems with comprehending clear and simple explanations", though I disagree with your apparent opinion as to on whose part those problems are manifested.
I see no evidence to support your assertion "So far my arguments and evidence have not been taken seriously": on the contrary, it seems to me that your arguments, often repeated at great length, have been seriously considered and independently rejected by a number of people. You state that "The blocking admin made an obvious mistake as the evidence above clearly shows", but that is not "obvious" either to me or to any of the other administrators who have reviewed your unblock requests. Has it occurred to you that when only one person is in step there is something odd going on?
Another thing which you say with which I agree is "It is ridiculous that this has gone on for so long." Your endless repetition of the same points, both in your unblock requests and in your other comments on this page, are a complete waste of time for the administrators who review your unblock requests, and since you show no signs at all of learning from what you have been told, and no sign at all of being willing to consider any change in your position, it seems highly improbable that such waste of time will ever be compensated by anything constructive coming out of your posting here. Furthermore, even in the very unlikely event that eventually you post an unblock request which leads to your being unblocked, your history over the years suggests that you are likely to continue to be disruptive and be blocked again. In view of those considerations I shall remove your talk page access to prevent further waste of everybody's time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2017 (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.
I have read your email in which you ask for your talk page access to be restored. Nothing in it suggests that doing so would result in your posting a constructive unblock request, which is the purpose of allowing talk page access to blocked editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your second email. Like much of what you have posted both on this page and elsewhere, it manages to misread, I think, what has been said to you.
It is true that the administrator who reviewed your previous unblock request (Boing! said Zebedee) indicated that you could seek to have his decision reviewed by another administrator by submitting another unblock request, and that has indeed now been done. However, I don't see how his comments could be interpreted as meaning that if you did so and found that the resulting independent review went against you then you could just keep on posting more unblock requests based on the same reasoning as previous ones. (If I am wrong in my assessment of his meaning then I am sure he will post here and say so.)
I have corrected an editing error in the above message. I know that changing a message after it has been read and responded to is not usually a good idea, but in this case the alternative of leaving nonsense seems to me t be worse. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you are not interested in posting another unblock request. Since that is the reason for leaving talk page access for a blocked editor, it suggests that there is unlikely to be any useful purpose served by restoring access. However, in exceptional circumstances there can be good reasons for permitting talk pae access for other purposes, and if you can indicate that there is such a purpose, I can consider your request. However, I will need much more specific explanation than "I want to discuss some issues", as that could easily mean that you want to repeat on the same sort of thing which led to the removal of talk page access in the first place.
Finally, if you do wish to request an unblock at some time in the future it is possible to do so by use of the Unblock Ticket Request System, but I caution you that if you do so and your request is similar to the ones you have posted on this page your chance of being unblocked will be very low. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think that the bit I wrote above beginning "The one part of your defence that I am prepared to accept..." was a bit too categorical. My view would be better expressed by "The one part of your defence that I am prepared to accept may possibly be true is your statement that you have not deliberately misrepresented sources. Having extensively read your comments on this matter, both on this page and elsewhere, I think it is conceivable that it may not have been deliberate at all, that you are perfectly sincere, and that you really cannot see the fallacies in your position. If so, your inability to understand what is said to you makes it impossible for you to overcome teh problems there have been in your editing.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your third email. Like so much of what you have written, it appears to indicate a total failure to understand what you have already been told. No, please don't email me all of what you wish to say about this. You say that there is "some disconnect and misunderstanding". That may be true, or it may be that, as some other editors think, you understand perfectly well and are deliberately being dishonest, but either way it makes no difference. Whether you can't or won't understand, enough time has been wasted on you. I don't propose to spend yet more, nor to help you to waste more of other people's time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have used email to (a) post substantially the same stuff to more than one administrator, apparently in the hope of eventually finding one who will accept your point of view, (b) repeat exactly the same stuff you have repeatedly posted on Wikipedia, and about which you have repeatedly ignored other editors' answers and explanations, and (c) post personal attacks, email access will be removed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got home this evening to find another email from YMB29, and I came over here to ask for it to stop. As email access has already been revoked, I'll leave this comment here just for the record. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
