Jump to content

User:Gitz6666/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1949, a Soviet commission of inquiry produced a report titled On the misdeeds of the Italo-Fascist troops on the territory of the Soviet Union, which detailed alleged war crimes committed by the Italian army on the Eastern Front. These accusations, including the execution of civilians and prisoners of war, forced labour, and the destruction of towns and villages, were largely ignored in Italy during the Cold War. Motivated by a desire to protect the army's reputation and distance it from the actions of the German occupiers, the Italian government prioritised preventing the extradition of accused officers over investigating the Soviet allegations.[1] This contributed to a long-standing narrative, derived from war memoirs and early historiographical studies, that perpetuated the myth of the Italian army's innocence of war crimes on the Eastern Front. The cliché of "Italians, good people" prevailed unchallenged, despite evidence of Italian involvement in the German occupation and repression apparatus, war crimes against the civilian population and the exploitation of prisoners of war for forced labour.[2]



[3] * Schlemmer, Thomas (2019-11-21T00:00:00+01:00). Invasori, non vittime (in Italian). Laterza. ISBN 978-88-581-4048-2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)


Reduxx is a self-described "truly pro-woman, pro-child safeguarding platform that could provide high-quality news and opinion on the stories the mainstream media ignores". [1] A quick look at their website shows that their only interest is in promoting misinformation and harmful stereotypes about transgender people. The constant use of phrases such as "trans-identified male" is indicative of this. Media Matters for America calls Reduxx "an anti-trans blog" [2] and notes that Reduxx has repeatedly misgendered volleyball player Blaire Fleming. [3] For more information on the site, see the article on its founder, Anna Slatz.



There are also zero, exactly zero sources that say I am not Tinkerbell. If the BBC, TIME, CNN, Smithsonian magazine, etc., had published articles saying "Elinruby is Tinkerbell", I'd expect some expert on Peter Pan to have written, if not a proper essay, at least a letter to those news organisations pointing out that it was quite unlikely. Today in Japan there are hundreds of experts on the Sengoku period, Oda Nobunaga, feudal Japan, military history, samurai, etc.; they have a vibrant academia and world-class universities and are well aware of what BBC, TIME, CNN, etc., publish. None of them felt the need to correct this serious misrepresentation, "Yasuke is a samurai". Besides, if one wants to hear the historians' view of the matter, this Google group is an interesting read. David Howell, Professor of Japanese History at Harvard University, writes that when he had not even heard of Lockley's book and was unaware of the controversy, he answered a direct question by saying that yes, Yasuke is a samurai. Dan Sherer, a historian of Pre-Modern Japan at the Department of Asian Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes that Yasuke is a samurai "by any reasonable definition". I don't deny that there are complexities: Rômulo Ehalt, a legal historian at the MPI in Frankfurt, thinks that no one from the 16th century, not even Japanese individuals, should be described as a "samurai". According to out dedicated article and to Michael Wert [4], the word "samurai" was often used to refer to the lowest-ranking warriors at the time, so it's quite likely that it would have been offensive to call Yasuke a "samurai". But all this is not about Yasuke, it's about the concept of the samurai and how it has changed over time. There's no point in arguing about this, especially after two RfCs: this controversy over Yazuke's samurai status was not started by academics, but by people who learned everything they know about feudal Japan from video games. If and when a reputable historian explains why Yasuke should not be considered a samurai, our article will change accordingly. Until then, let's bury the hatchet and call it a day.

My evidence submission shows persistent unprovoked aggression by Elinruby towards me, which justifies a one-sided interaction ban to protect both my peace of mind and the quality of the discussions I am involved in. Elinruby doesn't look at what I actually do and say, but continues to argue on the basis of their assumptions about me and my intentions. This leads to many unfounded accusations and serious misunderstandings.

Elinruby's evidence submission provides some good examples. It has little to do with Yasuke but feels like more harassment. For instance, the way they comment this diff with aggressively policing speaks volumes: Jmendez75 had removed "samurai" and added I'm fucking going to [remove samurai]. He wasn't a samurai and anyone who says he was is a liar and a hack with no proof to back it up. I reverted and linked to the recently closed RfC. My revert was not aggressive: it was justified and in line with the RfC outcome. The same applies to this diff, which Elinruby comments with insists.

Regarding my alleged "Pattern of behaviour", Elinruby shares this diff and comments Already covered in lead"?!?. As the diff shows, the content I removed was repeated twice in the lead, the first time in the first paragraph, as I indicated ("she became the first Indian sprinter to win gold at the Universiade"). Elinruby doesn't look at all the good work I did on Dutee Chand on 30-31 August 2024, but looks for "patterns" to validate their perception of who I am. And in doing so, they misunderstand.

Regarding my editing restriction on Imane Khelif, Elinruby casts doubt on my compliance by highlighting compliance? in bold. The answer is simple: yes, I have complied. Anyone, including Elinruby, can easily verify this by checking the page history. Regarding "Ukraine for pattern of behaviour", their first diff shows that in September 2023 my tban from the Russo-Ukrainian topic area was lifted and that I told Callanecc I will avoid general editing of the area. Elinruby then shares 20 diffs to prove that I did not keep my word. By my reckoning, I've made about 1500 edits since the tban was lifted: compared to my previous level of involvement, 20 edits is nothing. I don't even check my watchlist anymore. And none of the diffs they shared prove any misconduct.

If there is anything that seems worthy of discussion in the other diffs shared by Elinruby, please ask.

Elinruby's evidence submission shows a clear bias against me, along with an inability to fairly assess my edits. Their focus on imaginary "patterns", their snide innuendos and repeated misinterpretations are damaging and uncivil. Together with the diffs I have shared, their submission calls for a one-sided interaction ban, which would greatly ease my editing experience on WP and prevent future disruption.


Evidence of sanctions applied to an editor on other Wikimedia Foundation projects should generally be excluded from behavioral disputes on the English Wikipedia.

While editors may be aware of actions taken against an editor on other WMF projects, they usually lack the full context to understand the circumstances of those actions. Standards of conduct and administrative action vary widely from project to project. Relying on such evidence risks introducing bias and hindering fair dispute resolution.

Evidence of misconduct on other projects may be considered in exceptional circumstances, such as when it is directly relevant to a pattern of cross-wiki disruption, or when it provides essential context for current disputes on the English Wikipedia. Outside of such cases, however, introducing evidence of sanctions on other projects may be a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, as it can involve making unsubstantiated allegations that damage an editor's reputation without providing an adequate opportunity for rebuttal.

Such behaviour, if detrimental to the fairness of the process and disruptive to discussions of on-wiki conduct, may result in sanctions.



I don't think the main problem is the behaviour of us parties. There has been a lot of bludgeoning and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, especially from editors who disagree with the first RfC. As for us parties, the most worrying aspect is the hostility towards Symphony Regalia, which I think is a symptom of battleground mentality; I see no merit in Yvan Part's complaint against them. But overall, I'm more concerned about disruptive editing by non-party editors. Looking at the last seven days, 20-26 September 2024, we see:

To me all this suggests that ArbCom should consider whether having a new CT is in order.

  1. ^ Schlemmer 2019, 90-93/400.
  2. ^ Schlemmer 2019, 17/400, 93/400.
  3. ^ Schlemmer 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gitz6666/sandbox&oldid=1255937611"