User talk:Freerow2

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks will be coming next for edit-warring. In addition, I am not going to take an accusation in ethnocide lightly Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking better at your edits, of which zero are good, I decided that continuation of your ability to edit Wikipedia will not be beneficial.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2023 (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).

Freerow2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I am a new editor of Wikipedia and am here to build a better encyclopedia. Bear with me as I am not aware of the policies and procedures here yet. I believe the block is not necessary as I am here to make productive contributions. I was surprised by user Ymblanter's blanket removal of my edits without civil discourse. Addressing the claimed issue of "zero good edits", I would like to point out that the following is a good edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vitaly_Mukha&diff=prev&oldid=1136058637 . Vitaly was born in Ukraine to a Ukrainian family as the article states and I believe that justifies the category of Ukrainian Mechanical Engineers. With regards to the "nationalistic POV" claim, it is my position that my edits are trying to exhibit Ukrainian identity and ethnicity and are not about nations. Furthermore, I have not done any "name calling". Perhaps these words are due to an English language barrier issue. What I was trying to do was point out the documented tactic of suppressing Ukrainian identity and culture under the guise of eliminating "nationalism". https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Holodomor#CITEREFWolowyna2021 I'd like to state again that I am here to improve Wikipedia and have found excellent articles on Georgy Voronoy (https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Voronoy/ , https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3269 ). These articles themselves have great references which can be used to improve the Wikipedia page on Georgy. Thank you for your time. Freerow2 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your example of a good edit added a category that did not exist to an article, and so was an example of a poor edit. Yamla (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2023 (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.

@Yamla: I feel that you are biting the newbies and are coming down too hard on me. Can you please be more constructive in your reasoning. With regards to the edit above, I was not aware that category did not exist and that it needed to exist to make that edit. I am a new user. There was a subsequent edit that changed the capitalization of 2 letters which converted the category to one that did exist. I believe this is an example of a good edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vitaly_Mukha&diff=prev&oldid=1136059288 Freerow2 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, classifying the guy as a "Ukrainian mechanical engineer" is at best highly contentious, at worst plainly wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it is highly contentious? Can you also provide reasons for why you think it's wrong? Freerow2 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Amos Comenius [1] was born in the Holy Roman Empire and died in the Dutch Republic. On his page he is classified as a Czech scientist, Czech philosopher, and so on. Freerow2 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Freerow2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I violated the principles of Wikipedia. It should not be used as a soapbox or a battleground. I should not have used it as a platform for advocacy nor activism nor righting great wrongs. I should have edited objectively about things from a neutral point of view. My handful of edits show a tendency of entho/national advocacy: contribs. Instead of those edits, I should have started discussions on the article talk pages. The discussions should have been focused on improving the article by summarizing the contents of the references rg ro rh in a neutral manner.

I understand that I have edited disruptively and started an edit war. I should not have made those reverts and should have used more constructive and civil language and should not have insinuated perpetuation of ethnocide. I should have tried to resolve content disputes on the talk page while mentioning that the references on the respective wikis do indeed say "Ukrainian mathematician/Ukrainian philosopher/a Ukrainian". I should also have been more careful in editing contentious topics.

I could have made non-contentious edits on those articles. For example I could have added that Georgy completed his high school education at the gymnasium in Pryluky, graduating in 1885" rg. Also that Olga received medals from the Collège de France and the Charles University of Prague ro.

I could have also edited in a non-contentious topic. A potential edit would have been adding that the Greenlandic Inatsisartut translates to "those who make the law" citing the Parliament of Greenland web page. Freerow2 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am removing the block per your agreement with a topic ban from Balkans/Eastern Europe people, broadly construed, and appealable after six months. I will log this in the arbitration enforcement log. If you violate the topic ban, you will be reblocked as an arbitration enforcement action. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note: unblock reason amended after IRC chat. Freerow2 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra @Yamla @Ymblanter @TimothyBlue @Valereee Hello, can I get some feedback on the unblock request and the situation? I have been trying to resolve this for a while and only got these 2 comments c1 c2 related to my first request in late March. I have made a new request, asked for guidance on IRC and updated it multiple times, but the situation seems to have become stale. Can I get some feedback and for a way to proceed? Freerow2 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I'm willing if you're willing. but I'm easy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I should be involved in any further decision on this block. I think the whole point of the block request is for an uninvolved administrator to have a look. I am obviously involved since I blocked the user. Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying that usually unblocking is not done against the wishes of the blocking admin unless a larger discussion(not just a single reviewing admin) determines otherwise. Certainly it can be your general policy to not be further involved once you block(and I'm fairly sure you aren't the only one), just explaining. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I was pinged, but at a quick look at your contributions, FR2, it really looks as if you're primarily here to WP:RGW. Edits (and edit summaries) like this one just seem to want to push ethnicity into article leads. Valereee (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Let me just further clarify here. I pinged TimothyBlue and yourself as I saw you were involved in this discussion that started after an edit I made. Yes, my initial edits were about righting great wrongs. At that time, I perceived those articles to be biased with regards to suppression of the person's identity. Those were some of my first edits on Wikipedia and I was not aware of the guidelines and policies. I am now more familiar with what Wikipedia is, and with the policies and guidelines here. I am able to refrain from pushing ethnicity into article leads and can contribute verifiable content unrelated to ethnicity to those articles. I've put some examples into my unblock request. I can also follow Wikipedia's policy on addressing wrongs that have been sorted in the real world by updating articles with reliable sources. Freerow2 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think some sort of topic ban may be warranted here; my first instinct was the Balkans/Eastern Europe area, but that may be too broad, perhaps people from that area? 331dot (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look here and I appreciate you offering a way forward. I would like to make the argument that a topic ban on people from the Balkans/Eastern Europe area is a bit too restrictive. I am able to contribute non-contentious content (unrelated to ethnicity/nationality) from reliable sources to these pages. Some examples are in my unblock request. I can also start discussions on those article's talk pages along the lines of this Copernicus section. The cases in the articles I edited are much more simple than the Copernicus case, but that is an excellent example of how to deal with these situations. On the other hand, I would also be fine with a few/couple of months of a block on articles for people from the Balkans/Eastern Europe. I am willing to accept various outcomes that people find reasonable. Freerow2 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra @Valereee @331dot What is the way forward here? It looks like I need a larger discussion (not just a single reviewing admin) according to 331dot's comment above, as the blocking admin doesn't want to be involved. Is 3 enough or are more needed?

Summarizing the situation so far: Deepfriedokra was willing to unblock if Ymblanter was willing, but Ymblanter was not. Valereee had concerns about WP:RGW and pushing ethnicity into article leads to which I responded here. 331dot asked about a topic ban for people from the Balkans/Eastern Europe and I responded to that as well. I really think that fundamentally this is a case of a newbie editor with good intent that was not familiar with wiki policies and guidelines. Freerow2 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think accepting the suggested topic ban on Eastern Europe/Balkans people, broadly construed, appealable after six months of constructive editing, might be a way forward. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I am fine with the suggested topic ban on Eastern Europe/Balkans people, broadly construed, appealable after six months of constructive editing. Freerow2 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]