User talk:Prüm

May 2018

Hi, Prüm. As you have been repeatedly told, the proper thing to do if you no longer stand by a comment you've made, while other people have responded to it, is to leave it on the page and strike it out using ~~and~~ . This is not some technical or bureaucratic requirement, but simply to avoid wrong-footing the people who have responded, and avoid confusing readers. I'm surprised to see you reject Sitush's requests, and to answer him like this.

Also, you'd be wise to remove your new comment[1] before anybody comments on it. It's so offensive that a clerk may well remove it if you don't. Indeed, I'll bring it to a clerk's attention myself. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I've removed the comment as a clerk action, and strongly encourage you not to continue participating in the case unless you are going to post only when supported by diffs and in a civil way. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't forget what I've seen. Grawp sound a bell? You may proceed. --Prüm (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rewording the evidence. Mdann52 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Well, either you're Grawp, or you're pretending to be. Either of those rates an indefinite block. Done. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Can I still appeal this block? I am not Grawp and have no wish to be or become like him. I was just freaking out during the course of the day. Regards, --Prüm (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can appeal through the usual process. But impersonating JarlaxleArtemis is not a recipe for success here, so you need to try for a good explanation. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 08:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Why did you reference Grawp? You seem to have gone out of your way to attract attention and bring Grawp into the picture. You claimed to be Grawp on the most watched board on Wikipedia.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just undergoing the most horrible experience of my whole life so far. I don't wish to go into any more detail, but that's why I felt I couldn't go on anymore. I actually can't remember it well now. In other words: I was mentally very unstable when I wrote this, but can feel myself getting better now. I referenced Grawp because that was the one thing that came to my mind then. It's been a long time since he terrorized Wikipedia, but I did feel there must be a connection to the state of mind I was trying to describe above. Thanks for your asking. --Prüm (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: If there's anything more you need to know before agreeing to unblock my account, feel free to ask me here (or via E-mail, I leave that up to you). Thank you for your patience with me. --Prüm (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prüm, I think you'd better appeal directly to the arbitration committee, since the buck stops with them, and CU data may be useful (the arbs are all checkusers). Tell them the blocking admin suggested it. The e-mail address is arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I will do as you suggest. --Prüm (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen and Boing! said Zebedee: I did indeed appeal to ArbCom via the way you both suggested. Thank you for bearing with me. --Prüm (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom members: On a side note: There was a failed login attempt into my account early on May 4th (before 1:00 UTC), during the attack wave. I don't know if that's relevant, but I guess it might somehow be helpful. Cheers, --Prüm (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To any enwiki admin reading this: I would propose another deletion of my userpage, such that the more informative metawiki userpage I created today will become visible instead. Thanks in advance, --Prüm (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prüm, I don't think the failed login attempt is relevant to anything, because pretty much everybody's been getting failed login attempts in the last few days. See for example this AN thread. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I thank both of you again. That's pretty much reading, @Bishonen. I will leave the above mention intact, anyway, because the failed login attempt might just fit into a pattern, which the ArbCom members would perhaps like to know more about. I will, of course, refrain from speculating about it. --Prüm (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to sincerely apologize to anyone who felt offended by what I wrote when I was in the state of mind described in my request and the collateral evidence presented here and which began around 6:30 UTC on May 3rd and lasted for around one day. This goes for User:K.e.coffman as well. I can not really pin down what has led me to do it, but it may be a combination of perceived stress from outside influences, lack of sleep and generally not paying enough attention to my inner voice anymore. I hope there is a way I can undo the damage done. --Prüm (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am neither Grawp nor JarlaxleArtemis and never wanted to be them or impersonate any of them. I also didn't desire to draw undue attention to myself when I said this, I was in a state of acute mental anguish, which has subsided now. Invoking Grawp was a last ditch attempt to prevent any further damage from occuring through disruptive editing with my account, which I believe happened because I was feeling myself lose my grip over reality. You may look into my editing history, which wasn't suspicious until the last week or so. I wish to contribute to improving myself and others again through editing enwiki the way I did before, and therefore politely ask to be unblocked. I had my main account on dewiki unblocked already and was never blocked on meta, having withdrawn the block request there in time. Prüm (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Bishonen, above, that you should really appeal this directly to the Arbitration Committee - they might want to examine checkuser data and might want to ask you for personal information. And as this has apparently arisen from a personal crisis, I recommend keeping away from the public gaze as much as possible. As Bishonen says, the address to use is arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2018 (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 missed much of this excitement but Grawp is no joking matter. People have been hurt. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know… What more can I do, in your opinion? --Prüm (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

After being tipped off by your Meta page, I've checked out your contributions to German Wikipedia, and I no longer find it at all likely that you have anything to do with Grawp. You have been unblocked. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 08:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much. I hope I will get to enjoy editing enwiki again. There are so many go- and nogo-rules that make life rather difficult here. I'll "see ya 'round", I guess. Thanks again for the block, and the unblock :-) --Prüm (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prüm, I've always thought you had a pretty cool username--and just now I discovered they named a treaty for you. Bravo! Drmies (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, if there's something you would like to let me know, like you feeling offended by me in some way, feel free to tell me outright. Clubbing around the bush is not to my liking. Thanks. --Prüm (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you completely misunderstand everything I'm saying. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then where do we go from here? --Prüm (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was only trying to make a nice comment about your nice user name. That's all. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a funny name too, but I'm not making fun of you when I say that. So there. --Prüm (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Prüm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]