User talk:KanteP

January 2017

Hello, I'm Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Judenfrei have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, 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 that 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.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

G'day. I suggest you stop wholesale deletions from Banjica concentration camp, and tagging Kragujevac massacre for being over-long when (based on the recency of your account) you don't appear to have sufficient experience of editing Wikipedia to know what an appropriate amount of background is for a comprehensive article. You began by complaining about the length of the Background section when I started expanding it on Banjica concentration camp to explain how Serbia came to be occupied by the Germans and the structures they put in place there that oversaw the operation of the camp, then you tagged it as being over-long, then you deleted wholesale sections that I had worked on for some time. When, during that process, I pointed out an article with a similar amount of background, Kragujevac massacre, which is currently undergoing Good Article assessment, you went there, and instead of looking and learning, you tagged it as being too long as well, and started making comments about it to the GAN reviewer. That is a transparent attempt to derail the GAN review, and extremely disruptive to our community processes.

During our interaction, I have also pointed you to Gudovac massacre as an example of a comprehensive article (an FA in fact) with a substantial background section, like Banjica concentration camp and Kragujevac massacre, yet you appear to have gained nothing from looking at that article either. I have contributed to over twenty FAs and 50 GAs on en WP, so I have a fair idea what is required to make an article comprehensive. At this point, you have only your opinion, and your opinion is not backed up by examples of comprehensive articles at FA or even GA. I am making a good faith attempt to improve the Banjica concentration camp article, using a comprehensive set of sources on German-occupied Serbia in WWII, and you appear set on a course of undermining my efforts to do so, for reasons unknown. I have issued you with an ARBMAC notice so you are aware that poor editing behaviour on Balkans-related articles can result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions by uninvolved administrators. I hope it does not come to that. You are a new account, but most uninvolved admins are going to assume you have been editing WP before you registered this account, and may therefore not assume you are a newbie, and will likely be quick to impose sanctions if they perceive you are being disruptive. Which you currently are. Please engage properly on the talk pages of articles you are editing, discuss matters in detail using sources, and stop edit warring and making wholesale deletions of other editors work. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Edmond Paris while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. Note that the abusive use of multiple accounts or evasion of a blockage may result to you to have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It's easy to see the last edit of the retired Vujkovica brdo account was November 17 2016. My first edit came almost two months later - January 13 2017. Therefore, the accusation Abusing multiple accounts is baseless. Admin Bbb23 is apparently a Croat keen to help his Croatian friends in distorting history of Serbia by advertising (inside Wikipedia) relentlessly Cohen's Serbia secret war ... - a political pamphlet rejected by many notable scholars. --bez potpisa (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:54, 28 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It's easy to see the last edit date of the retired User:Vujkovica brdo account was November 17 2016. My first edit came more than two months later - on January 19 2017. Therefore, the accusation Abusing multiple accounts is baseless. In addition and as far as I can see, I did not edit any of the articles edited by User:Vujkovica brdo nor discussed any of the topics Vb discussed ever. I never used 91.150.92.1, 109.92.171.133, 178.221.137.49 which is quite easy to check by a checkuser. Apologies for comment about Bbb23. --bez potpisa (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no point in wikilawyering over whether or not your use of multiple accounts and IP addresses was abuse, because whether it was or not you are sufficiently disruptive that unblocking you would not benefit the project. You have repeatedly edit-warred, you have attempted to promote a point of view and remove content inimicable to that point of view, you have attacked other editors, you have removed talk page comments you didn't like, and so on and so on. Unblocking would be totally unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 4 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, my first and only Wikipedia account is KanteP. All attempts to tie me to Vujkovica brdo, coming from JamesBWatson, are nonsense. Here we have a baseless refusal of my unblock request coming from JamesBWatson:

"you have removed talk page comments you didn't like" It is possible to see that I edited articles for no more than five days and that there is no single case of removing other people's comments.
"you have attempted to promote a point of view and remove content inimicable to that point of view" Cohen's book is a piece of political propaganda (by its title: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History) rejected as a scholar work by six notable scholars/historians as "the current popular-historical and journalist literature that seeks to demonize and condemn more than to chronicle and elucidate fairly" and " what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew (Cohen) participate in such dishonorable deed?". I attempted to remove this unreliable source from a few articles and the replace it by the reliable ones. As to the "repeated edit warring" there was tw deletions of a statement (Browning) which is notionally and factually wrong. For details see the Antidiskriminator's explanation and support and for the factual accuracy (about Poland being a country where the Jews were killed on spot) see "Beginning in late winter 1943, trains arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau on a regular basis carrying Jews from ... the easternmost reaches of German-occupied Poland ..."

"you are sufficiently disruptive "As we see everything is contrary to WP:DE since the " ... progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." cannot be based on political propaganda and the lack of factual accuracy which clearly disqualifies the WP:DE accusation.

"You have repeatedly edit-warred" Also, just a two reverts over five days cannot justify accusation of repeated edit warring. All my edits were supported by reliable resources' quotes and inline references.

" you have attacked other editors" My comments do not contain any personal attacks of other editors which is quite easy to see from this short 5 days long history of changes. Baseless accusations and disqualifications are the worst cases of personal attacks and uncivil behavior.

I have no illusion that there will be no another administrator who would fire a new batch of baseless accusations and disqualifications, similar to those coming from Bbb23 ans JamesBWatson. This request for unblock will remain no more than a trigger for another demonstration of Wikipedia lawlessness and disrespect of true encyclopaedic knowledge. --bez potpisa (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the links and discussion below, these denials are not plausible, and I really see no benefit to the encyclopedia in an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 8 February 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.

First of all, my first and only Wikipedia account is KanteP. All attempts to tie me to Vujkovica brdo, coming from JamesBWatson, are nonsense.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is response to Boing! said Zebedee The links are proving nothing. I already stressed above: I am not Vujkovica brdo, nor checkuser provided any valid proof that I am. My account was created more than two months after Vujkovica brdo retired, I did not edit any page edited by Vujkovica brdo. Therefore it's not possible even technically link my account to Vujkovica brdo account

Decline reason:

I am declining this request because it fails, again, to address the disruption caused by your edits. Since your appeals themselves are now becoming disruptive, I am revoking your talkpage access; any future appeals will need to be made via UTRS. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:45, 8 February 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.

Comments relating to the above unblock request.

Hmm. So you deny having ever removed talk page comments, edit-warred, and made personal attacks? The strangest thing about those denials is that in support of them you cite evidence which makes sense only if one assumes you have edited only from this account (e.g. "I edited articles for no more than five days") despite the fact that you do not deny having also used the account Vujkovica brdo: you only deny that your use of multiple account was abuse. Well, to reduce the amount of time that the administrator who reviews this unblock request has to spend searching, I will give a few diffs. He or she can decide whether they constitute removing talk page comments and edit-warring or not.

The reviewing administrator may like to assess whether these diffs are examples of removing talk page comments or not: [1] [2]
The reviewing administrator may like to look at the following diffs and decide whether they constitute edit-warring or not. They are not all identical, but some of them are, and all of them contains significant content which is also included in other diffs in the list:

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].

And here is another sequence of edits on the same article, some months earlier:

[10] [11] [12] [13].

And here is an example from this sockpuppet account, rather than from your original account: [14] [15] [16]
As for personal attacks, no diff is necessary, as anyone looking at this page can easily find an example. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewing admin

It is rather disingenuous of KanteP to claim that they haven't been abusing multiple accounts. The behavioural evidence provided in the SPI case clearly shows that KanteP has been abusively editing while logged out, using a significant number of IPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming KanteP and the IP edits are the same person, and even assuming KanteP is Vujkovica brdo, in what way is any of this abusing multiple accounts? A retired account is just an account that is not being used, not a commitment by an editor that they will never again edit Wikipedia. The retired Vujkovica brdo account has not been used since 17th Nov and there is no overlap between that date and edits made by KanteP or by the IP editors. An editor is perfectly entitled to create a new account some months after "retiring" and return under another user name. It would be polite for them to say they are back under a new account but it is not a requirement. Vujkovica brdo had no ongoing sanctions, and was never given any sanctions, so the KanteP account is not an account created to avoid existing sanctions or wipe a stained editing history clean. There is no evidence as far as I can see that KanteP and the IP editors have been claiming they are separate accounts or behaving in a way intended to suggest they are more than one person. Any editor can edit without logging in and editing under their user name - it is only abuse if they are doing it to pretend they are more than one person. What is the evidence for KanteP doing that? Diffs need to be presented showing that intent. The assignment of IP address is not under editor control, they are assigned by their internet provider so the fact of there being multiple IP addresses is completely irrelevant here without proof of intent to pretend that they represent more than one person. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the SPI? There is plenty of evidence for it. The multiple voting on the Talk:Banjica concentration camp RfC for starters, as 109.92.171.133, 178.221.137.49 and KanteP. The behavioural evidence in the SPI shows they are the same editor, as is the edit warring 91.150.92.1 on Edmond Paris, making the exact same deletion as KanteP. That is not editing while logged out "by accident", it is clearly being done intentionally to mislead the closer of the RfC and avoid having a editing history that shows the edit warring behaviour that Vujkovica brdo was involved in when they suddenly "retired". The abuse being perpetuated by this editor was obvious to the admin at SPI, and to the admin that blocked 91.150.92.1. I don't think an assumption of good faith is justified at this point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never used 91.150.92.1., 109.92.171.133, 178.221.137.49. It will be an easy task for a checkuser to verify it.--bez potpisa (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They won't, and you know it. The behavioural evidence on Judenfrei and Edmond Paris is clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior was strictly and transparently academic.--bez potpisa (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, remember I was assuming the very worst case here - that all the IP edits are by the same person, and that person is KanteP (the connection, if real, between KanteP and Vujkovica brdo involves no editing abuse of multiple accounts). Excluding the RfC you mentioned, in that very worst case it is edit warring, not behavior that can be called abuse of multiple accounts. You have not shown any diffs where the different IP numbers have edited the same article at the same time in order to circumvent something (such as 3rr or consensus) - I've quickly checked through the article histories and I also don't see any. Abuse of multiple accounts requires there to have been actual use of multiple accounts for the purpose of abuse, not an editor editing without logging in and using whatever IPs they are assigned. For the RfC, given that an editor generally can't decide in advance what IP address they are going to be assigned, it would have required KanteP to have first logged out, then noted the address they have been given by their IP, then check they have not already used that address to post in the RfC, then decide to make a post there. Honestly, I don't find that a realistic thing to have happened, given that the RfC IP comments are not particularly lucid or meaningful and a RfC is decided on the strength of the comments, not on sheer numbers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a mistake to think that use of multiple accounts can never be abuse unless they edit at the same time. To give just one example, an editor is warned about edit-warring. He or she switches to a new account, and uses it until that account is warned about edit-warring. He or she then switches to another one and uses it until that one gets an edit-warring warning... The editor hopes that in this way he or she will never get beyond a warning onto a block. That is certainly abuse of multiple accounts, even if there is no overlap in editing time. (And that is not a fictitious or hypothetical example: I have known it to happen.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and this is precisely what has been going on here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson. Serious thinking is always based on facts, proofs, and common sense. All three things (facts, proofs, and common sense) cannot be replaced by imaginary scenarios.--bez potpisa (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]