User talk:Complexity1

Welcome!

Hello, Complexity1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dcirovic (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Minor edits

I suggest you look at Help:Minor edit to see when this box should be clicked. No substantial revision should be so tagged. The content of the edits are fine, however. Clean Copy^talk 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your edit request

Hi, I looked at your edit request for russians at war and I am wondering, are you asking only for the title to change or for the entire section to be replaced with yours? thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cooldudeseven7 Thank you for looking at it. I suggested changing the entire section - which I took from proposed edits of other editors. I just verified the sources and voted for inclusion of this section. I saw it emerged 2 days ago but now it is gone again! The editor User:Manyareasexpert, who is (considering the history of edits) mostly edits and censors pages related to Ukraine, nothing else - keeps cutting the new edits out. I wonder if the case should be escalated for constant vandalism for review as it is a stalemate. The page meanwhile is outdated. The most impressive collection of sources and a good structure of the page was recently proposed on the Talk page by the User:EVS-VR. I wonder if you can have a look at it too - perhaps we can post that one and then protect it? Somebody posted it replacing the outdated page several days ago, but User:Manyareasexpert again reversed it. This is vandalism, as I know it. Complexity1 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been told to decline your edit request as suggested changes are contradicting the sources( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cooldudeseven7, Who exactly "told you to decline" the edit request - have you checked their neutrality, I wonder? Also, if nobody can just tell you to decline the request if the edit adds missing references and information. The edit of this page is obviously highjacked by people with emotional attitude related to the war in Ukraine to such degree that they compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Please review the edits and decide for yourself, not under the pressure of people, who, considering their former edits, are very biased on this issue. Complexity1 (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to give a more in-depth reason for the declined edit request.

1st: Editors said that suggested changes are contradicting the sources.

2nd: An ongoing discussion war is ongoing with the editors at the moment.

I do like your edit request, however at the moment, I will answer it later.

Note: I suggest you read the ongoing discussions on the talk page of the article.

On another note, due to the ongoing argument, I am not sure if this edit request is controversial at the moment.

Thank you, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your edit to Michael Clarke (academic) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster, I only added 1) the information about Prof. Clarke's book, which he discussed in several TV programs and which was mentioned on several websites. It wasn't a copyrighted material. However, I admit I should add more references - so bad was not adding a source, not copyrights 2) I also added missing information about his career. I see that his page is very small and misses important contributions of Prof Clarke. He is a much more knowledgeable than the majority of experts giving the interviews, so I believe his Wikipedia page should look more respectful. Again, my apologies for not giving additional references but existing references had relevant information. Overall, your revert was correct, I have no problems with it. It's a pity that I can't contribute anymore as I had a nerve to contribute to Russians at War page, and pro-Ukrainian editors (considering the history of their edits) managed to block me using their experience and privileges. I am not a match against their experience it it was easy win for them and a loss for me. Any advice would be great but please don't feel obligated. Complexity1 (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanVillager. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2024 (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).

Complexity1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I appeal this block because:

I misunderstood the rules of cooperation, voting and consensus of Wikipedia. I am a scientist, also sometimes working on common encyclopedias. In such work, cooperation involves close coordination, discussions and joint editing, ensuring that all editors "speak the same language" and agree on the main issues. After all, complex issues require cooperation in giving the summary to the readers. Here Wikipedia has a rule demanding independence of editors and absence of any personal contact. I apologize for not paying attention to is rule and will avoid cooperation with other editors in the future.

I normally don't edit pages related to anything political, this is my first and likely last attempt to do it. I had the luck to see the film Russians at War in September 2024 and was truly moved by its anti-war sentiment – it reminded me of “All Quiet on the Western”. I became aware of the backlash against the film by the Ukrainian community, primarily by people who could not have possibly seen the film (they organized their protests well before the film was screened). As a working scientist, I believe in the value of evidence, not opinions or rumors. I was impressed at the thoroughness of the effort undertaken by EVS-VR in helping to develop this page. I took it upon myself to check through the references that they provided – all were from legitimate sources, and all werre factual. When I was verifying the text proposed by EVS-VR, I read the multiple reviews in the Toronto papers by experienced journalists, all of whom objecting to the view that this film was a piece of propaganda.

My motivation in editing this page was to bring the facts about the reception of this film by professionals who saw the film. Similar motivation I observed from other editors, whom I admit, met in person. I am a mature specialist and not anybody's sockpuppet. And I guarantee you that I didn't hire, conspire with, asked anybody to join me or did anything else described as sockpuppeting. The proximity of the editors who saw the film can be simply explained by the fact that the film was shown primarily in Southern Ontario and was suppressed in other festivals from screeing. Editors who saw the film, therefore, could possible come only from that region and so likely talked to each other - it doesn't make them sockpuppets. The impression that they had similar position is no different from similarly of the position of the editors who blocked me. I considered it within the rules on consensus in Wikipedia and didn’t know that knowing someone in person limits the rules of consensus. My apologies that I didn’t know that. Importantly, I believed that the factual integrity of the text of the page should be given more priority for Wikipedia than any familiarity among the editors. If the factual integrity is less important than the fact that editors saw each other in person during the film's screening, then I was wrong, and my apologies for treating Wikipedia as any other encyclopedia.

I haven't received a single notification about problems with my editing and investigations regarding the block. My University likely blocks notifications as there is nothing from the Wikipedia in my email, including Spam folder. I wasn't informed about the reasons of the block (except one word - sockpuppeting), nor about evidence associated with it. I only found about the block several hours ago, when I tried to login.

I am a scientist with 3 scientific degrees (two PhD and one MD), so I might be useful for future editing. My areas of edits relate to mathematics, theoretical physics, several areas of psychology, psychiatry, psychometrics and computer science.

I helped Russians at War page rather modestly, just by verifying the part of the text and references. If it helps, I can promise never editing anything political, since it seems I stepped on someone toes here.

I apologize if I hurt someone's feelings with my previous comments.

Complexity1 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See conversation below. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2024 (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.

Hi Complexity1, can you explain your relationship to EVS-VR? I'm not asking you to provide any personally identifying information, but "people from Southern Ontario talked to each other about a topic" is absolutely not enough to get a "confirmed" result from a checkuser. Do you have an explanation for why your technical details would match theirs? We don't actually care all that much if you know someone personally - lots of us know other wikipedia editors personally. We do care quite a lot about a single person using multiple accounts, however. -- asilvering (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @asilvering I think I know this person even though more people can say they know me than I can say I know them. EVS is likely a colleague of mine who once asked me and others a technical question about editing Wikipedia during a get-together in my office following one big seminar. I don't think anyone in my circle uses multiple accounts, and certainly not me and I don't think EVS. The questions that EVS asked during our get-together meeting did not impress me with their technical competence. Then again, mine is probably not a great deal better.

After I attended the film ‘Russians at War’ at TIFF, I spoke to many of my friends and colleagues, expressing my enthusiasm for the film and my distress at the intensity of the backlash. It was that intensity which made me curious about the references listed in the extended version prepared by EVS, not the desire to check or control “what kids are doing” as EVS implied. I wanted to see the opinions of knowledgeable journalists and critics about the film, and along the way verify EVS’s citations. I now find myself caught up in the backlash as well. I normally only contribute to or comment on pages related to my research interests. I have a large and busy medical practice and an active research program with many students, so many people visit my office, in addition to patients and their family members. I got involved here as a matter of public duty in response to what I viewed as a clear assault on freedom of speech. If I became overly involved and crossed a line or violated some rule or restriction, then I do apologize. This has already consumed far too much of my time and resources. I have a book and a couple of papers to finish asap, two talks for a conference to prepare, so I can’t spare more time on checking that page or login and logout of Wikipedia every day. I do hope that this matter can come to an end -this endless back and forth must stop as it seems to be getting nowhere.

Also, asilvering, while I have your attention, I have a technical question. Other Wikipedia editors in my community told me that I am supposed to receive notifications if anybody leaves a message for me. I never receive them to my email, I can only see them if I am logged into my account on Wikipedia. So it is like a one-way street – I can mention someone and they see it, but if anybody mentions me, I can’t see it unless I am constantly logged in. I suspect this is because our University’s spam control system could be better. Tech support of our University wasn't that helpful when I asked them about it. If you could please advise me on that, I would be grateful. Complexity1 (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno, I think I know the answer already, but, just in case, does this explanation cover it?

@Complexity1, regarding the notifications, you probably have email notifications turned off. Go to Preferences --> Notifications. Make sure "edit to my talk page" and "mention" are checked under the email column. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BROTHER applies. See also the declined appeals on the other sock talk pages which honestly all read about the same to me (Volunt, EVS-VR). I've started stamping a {{confirmed}} mostly on connections where there can be 0 doubt that two editors are one person. So it would take a lot more than what I see above to convince me much less another checkuser (see jpgordon's decline particularly) this is in fact a legitimate "it was actually another guy" situation. We can ask a third CU if you really want. Izno (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, two CUs with an "unambiguous" and a confirmed "that story really does not help" is good enough for me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Complexity1, I should add that the standard offer is open to you. Six months without block evasion, come back and ask again, and your request is much more likely to succeed. -- asilvering (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked from editing?

After seeing Russians at War film and how unfairly it was mistreated by Ukrainians I participated in the verification of sources that EVS-VR had collected and cited (the existed then version of the film's page was a mess). Now I see that there was a number of notifications, which I haven't received to my email and that now I am blocked (and EVS-VR as well). Why? Someone should verify the text, and yes, if it is all correct, I didn't want to alter it. Can at least Izno explain what is happening behind my back? And please provide evidence of my wrong-doing Complexity1 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position about this block

I found out just a few hours ago that I have been blocked from editing on Wikipedia, supposedly due to “Sockpuppeteering”. As a 70 yr old-researcher, I had to look up what this meant and I was flabbergasted. I started editing in 2016, doing it occasionally, only on topics that I knew very well. To be accused of orchestrating a host of VPNs and false identities seems ludicrous to me. I work 6 days a week, I barely have time to eat during the day. Meanwhile I am being blocked by a seemingly more experienced group of sockpuppets, all known to each other, on the topic of Ukraine. Of course, they know how to play the game on Wikipedia and shut down unfavorable editors, plus they probably have time to do it. This imbalance of power and opportunity on Wikipedia only leads to the loss of real knowledge and maintaining texts that favor people who can afford trolls working 24 hours on their pages.

I had the luck to see the film “Russians at War” in September 2024 and was truly moved by its anti-war sentiment – it reminded me of “All Quiet on the Western”. I became aware of the backlash against the film by the Ukrainian-Canadian community, primarily by people who could not have possibly seen the film (they organized their protests well before the film was screened). The threats made against TIFF and its staff (I personally discussed it with staff), the disinformation, the statements that seemed to border on slander, the threats against the production team – what I saw was another wholesale attempt at censorship, and I wanted to contribute to giving the film a fair hearing. I have watched a worldwide effort to suppress the film – and it has been successful as several festivals have caved in to vicious threats – hardly an example of freedom of speech or of expression. What Russia did was terrible, but these actions do not help the Ukrainian cause. Behaving like bullies does not elicit sympathy. I found myself feeling quite incensed, which is very unusual for me and why I chose to become involved, apparently now to my dismay, in this page.

When I was verifying the text proposed by EVS-VR, I read the multiple reviews in the Toronto papers by objective, experienced journalists, all of whom echoed my own view that this was not a piece of propaganda. They varied in their opinion of the film as a piece of documentary filmmaking, which is fine, but they all agreed that it was not propaganda. I wanted to see an opportunity for the story of this film to be presented accurately and fairly, not as a proxy for the conflict between the Ukraine and Russia.

I did not think that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia would become so clearly biased in its point of view. As a working scientist, I believe in the value of evidence, not opinion. I was impressed at the thoroughness of the effort undertaken by EVS-VR in helping to develop this page. I took it upon myself to check through the references that they provided – all from legitimate sources, all factual. Here there are multiple reviews by multiple neutral journalists from a diversity of news outlets, and then there are multiple opinions pieces by people with no direct experience of the film who simply repeat one another as if that constitutes evidence.

I repeated some of what EVS wrote as a way of offering my support to their arguments. I did not think that co-operating with another editor was forbidden by Wikipedia – after all there seems to be lots of co-operating going on among those who wish to distort the story of this film and to actively censor it. The depiction of me in Machiavellian terms is laughable. Just take a look at the other topics to which I have contributed. Do they seem part of some conspiracy to manipulate?

I find it ironic that I am accused of malfeasance, and yet the process by which I have been accused, investigated and judged is entirely opaque. I have not received notifications about this mess and investigations. Maybe because my University filters them out (I checked my Spam folder – there is nothing there either). Now, I can’t reach out to any editors for questions: I can only write on my own page. I am not even allowed to see the evidence against me or the reasoning behind the decision – I am to simply “trust it”. This seems too much like a Kafkaesque kangaroo court.

I have certainly lost my respect and trust in Wikipedia as a source of reliable information and in the fairness of its editorial processes. Perhaps I am better off not having even a small part of my reputation linked to Wikipedia if this is the direction it is headed down.Complexity1 (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the IP of my office is blocked too. The same question: why, and where is the evidence of my wrong doing? I looked at the comments of Stoptheprop, who very enthusiastically promoted blocking me even though my contribution was minimal, I just checked a part of the text for sources. So far, the arguments are that I used the same text as EVS (yes, that’s how I verified the sources and confirmed that they are fine – why this is not allowed?) or that timing of edits is spread. I wonder, does Wikipedia consider as sock puppets those editors who live in different time zones or work in different day schedules – their edits will be always different? There is also the laughable argument that on one occasion my edit had a 4 min difference from someone else’s and “so in these 4 min I could flip the VPN switch”. Don’t they know that none of the social media websites now allow VPN, including Wikipedia, Youtube, etc? Complexity1 (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the proximity of editors is such a fundamental problem, why have the three editors Manyareasexpert, Stoptheprop and 0lida0 not been investigated for the same issue (as they all edit pages related mainly to Ukraine). Why they have also not been investigated also for the violation of WP:RUSUKR? Meanwhile Manyareasexpert even received a Barnstar, and I cite (see Talk) “The Dispute Resolution Barnstar: For effecting an Eastern Europe topic ban on a user that has over a very long time caused significant disruption to high-importance articles. Thanks! Lklundin (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC))”. How did Lklundin about such a specific Wikipedia page and their actions unless they are also part of the group? Indeed, looking at the history of edits, this editor mainly edited pages related to the Russian invasion. So clearly this group has WP:MEATPUPPET violation but administrators who investigated me, overlooked them? This is an example of double standards.[reply]

Stoptheprop now calls for a reversion of the page to a very old, messy version and deleting the current version of the page (see Talk.Complexity1 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the amount of edits by Manyareasexpert andLklundin it is clear that this is their full time job. No way that one can have so many edits per day on the fly. If so, then one should ask, who pays their salaries in this full time job, if they mostly edit on the matter of Ukraine and Russian invasion? I naively thought that contributions from specialists matter, even occasional ones, as editors on salaries can't possibly know everything. I was wrong, apparently: being a specialist means you belong to a small group, where everybody knows each other, as so you can't have a co-editor, you are alone against the establishment of paid editors. In this case the political views of editors on salaries (with more than 500 edits) will push aside occasional editors if our views are not aligned. This is the propaganda in action.

If Wikipedia editors and administrators truly care about the integrity of this public encyclopedia, you would have these three or four editors also investigated for violations of the rules, including editing the page in violation of WP:RUSUKR, WP:BF and WP:MEATPUPPET.

If the Wikipedia editors and administrators truly care about the trust of the public in this site, they would put the evidence of my wrong-doing here or at least provide a link here where anyone interested in this matter can see this evidence.

Let’s see if this will happen with these "IFs". After all this, you decide on the degree to which Wikipedia can be trusted to be unbiased and informative.

I am mentioned above as having awarded a barnstar. For the record that barnstar is (as stated in the quote) for a "topic ban" (on a user that is different from the one blocked here - and from their sockpuppetry account), not a general ban. I have to my knowledge never interacted with or even heard of these two banned accounts and I have certainly not made edits related to the mentioned film. Other than my barnstar award I have also not sought to coordinate editing efforts with any of the above editors and I have never communicated with any editors mentioned above via channels outside of Wikipedia. I reserve the right to award barnstars as I see fit. Lklundin (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]