User talk:Checkpoint18

SPA

You appear to be as wp:spa, do you have a wp:coi with the Hallwang Clinic GmbH, also please read wp:brd and wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk)

wished I had more time - but I'm following up on fake news from US and UK authors on the German health system Checkpoint18 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that is not a good answer, if this were to go to ANI this is an indicator you are here to right great wrongs, not to help build an encyclopedia. So I ask again, do you have any connection with Hallwang Clinic GmbH, a yes or no will suffice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don´t. I find it interesting that in my case, since I'm not belonging to a group that aims at defamation of companies and one-sided headlines, one is directly under suspicion to support anyone - as more neutral one writes in a fair context as more it becomes irrelevant- thats wrong! Neutrality aspects also should respect that a clinic cannot be controversial ONLY the discussion about it- as you can see in our discussion about it. Neutrality is a major guideline in wikipedia, that gets ignored by you. The reader of the article about the Hallwang clinic is directly getting influenced by the word controversial. At the end I'm tired to see that arguments don't count. I think that is also the reason why I'm still focussing on the hallwang clinic article - to see whether the wiki community - you - respect neutrality guidelines.Checkpoint18 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you do not have a COI. I might advise you to also read wp:or and wp;v.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn you seem to violate the neutrality code and filtrate Information for your own purpose. You have a conflict of interest . Your are redundant citing repititively a physician called Gorski but your are deleting valued comments from reknown scientists and directors of the Cancer Research UK and Institute Gustav Roussie.

Citation: You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification. Checkpoint18 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read wp:agf and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And (again) wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:ONUS its down to you to make a case for addition.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It just harming the reputation of Wikipedia to have a page so one sided presented - read the page- and I think one wonders wethers it wiki or any other shitstorm, non-sense side- so why not adding contact when it belongs to the same - Good and Bad content - life is colorful and content the key to knowledge ;) Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Can you present some RS that cover out coverage of the clinic negatively?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an SPA any report made against you will be judged more harshly. I suggest you walk away from this page and edit other pages here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Hallwang Clinic) for disruptive editing, edit warring, likely COI.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2021 (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).

Checkpoint18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I identified one sided editing by alexbrn Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:25, 3 February 2021 (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 suggest you read what you are supposed to do, as the above fails a number of requirements such as "Do not excuse what you did with what others did", "Assume good faith towards others." and "To effectively contest your block, you must understand the reason for it. Also, if the reviewing administrator concludes that the block was justified, you will not be unblocked unless the reviewing administrator is convinced that you understand what you are blocked for, and that you will not do it again.".Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really do need to move on to other pages before you get a total ban.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks slatersteven, maybe you take your time to read the Hallwang page and I‘m sure you will see what I mean, all the best :) Checkpoint18 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, see very well what you mean - that a fraudulent operation that makes loads of money from credulous people who believe in pseudoscience should be presented as a valid evidence-based clinic rather than what it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil Bridger- interesting what waves this creates- The edits from alexbrn must have really lead to high financial damages to the clinic. Neutrality is always the safest adviser and I‘m trying to help. Checkpoint18 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2021 (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).

Checkpoint18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not done any legal threats - just wrote the clinic that they are a target of defamation, and wiki administrators are informed Checkpoint18 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you see no problem, there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Nor have you addressed your edit warring or WP:COI. Yamla (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2021 (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.

Blocking is the mirror of weakness of this platform, don‘t you think? Checkpoint18 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you used the possibility of legal action as a cudgel in a discussion, clearly to have a chilling effect. That is no different than if you threatened to initiate a legal action yourself. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: - You might want to take another look at that link. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] That's the correct link. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The edits from alexbrn must have really lead to high financial damages to the clinic. Neutrality is always the safest adviser and I‘m trying to help." also reads a bit like a thinly vieled legal threat. I had no picked up on the legal threat else I would have been less tolerateant of them. Checkpoint18 you need to read wp:legal "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention.". If you are going to appeal again actually bother to read what you have been asked to read and make a proper case. I point you to WP:NOTDUMB as a useful guide, if you had followed this simple advice you might have been unblocked. You also really do need to declare the obvious COI you have, an SPA with this level of commitment to one article must have a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"defamation" by the way is a specific crime, so also fails wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]