Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) →February 2017: clarify |
Mr rnddude (talk | contribs) Long post, many things to cover, mostly content and can be moved to article talk page. |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:::That you're not doing so is denying me even the remotest chance of the right of reply. I do not know what I am accused of, because you have only referred to it in the most general, and often (again in my view) contradictory terms.--[[User:Senor Freebie|Senor Freebie]] ([[User talk:Senor Freebie#top|talk]]) 03:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
:::That you're not doing so is denying me even the remotest chance of the right of reply. I do not know what I am accused of, because you have only referred to it in the most general, and often (again in my view) contradictory terms.--[[User:Senor Freebie|Senor Freebie]] ([[User talk:Senor Freebie#top|talk]]) 03:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
*As you using this talk page to continue making personal attacks (and escalating them) and to continue the drama, while totally refusing to consider that anything you have done or said could possibly have been in the slightest bit wrong (despite a clear agreement between two admins here and a third party at the article talk page), I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. And I think that is for your own good - had you been allowed to continue like this, I think the block would have been extended. If the admin who reviews this request disagrees with me, they are welcome to reinstate that privilege - but either way, please do listen to whatever the reviewer says, as you are very close to your last chance for stick-dropping now. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
*As you using this talk page to continue making personal attacks (and escalating them) and to continue the drama, while totally refusing to consider that anything you have done or said could possibly have been in the slightest bit wrong (despite a clear agreement between two admins here and a third party at the article talk page), I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. And I think that is for your own good - had you been allowed to continue like this, I think the block would have been extended. If the admin who reviews this request disagrees with me, they are welcome to reinstate that privilege - but either way, please do listen to whatever the reviewer says, as you are very close to your last chance for stick-dropping now. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
*{{ec}} Here, instead of Ad Orientem, I'll do it with regards to the comments you left for Nick-D. I'll start with a clarification; {{tq|Can I ask which claims you thought I was referring to, and why you feel like it's justified to level a personal attack against me?}}. Their saying that they're skeptical of your approach is not a personal attack. It's a simple criticism of your approach and does not call into question your being in any sense of the term. Contrarily, you have suggested that Nick-D is pushing a narrative with your reply here; {{tq|Also, can you please acknowledge the other sourced material about similar conflicts in NZ and Britain that I included, which runs contrary to the narrative you're trying to support?}} Are you suggesting that Nick is POV pushing? <br>I'll also take a segment to address your comment above somewhere regarding suggesting I am OWNing the article, which you retracted and have now unretracted. Not to mention suggested that I have now left the discussion because my position has been disproven and what ... left me too embarrassed to show my face? what's the implication. I haven't been to active over the past week or so. You could have at least shown the fortitude to say it to me directly, rather than on a page where I have been otherwie uninvolved. <br>Let's start with the edit you're calling out here; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Brisbane&diff=758442699&oldid=758442080]. Let's skip the edit summary for a minute here and actually look at the content of my edit. You know, the thing that gives context to my edit summary. My edit had two effects, 1. changing the title of the segment from "Differing views on race" to just "Views on race", and far more importantly 2. I removed the portions of the following section which I have underlined to highlight <u>Although white</u> Australians had traditionally treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks,{{r|baker2004}} <u>this changed markedly from 1940 when indigenous servicemen (Australian units were not segregated) were given equal pay and conditions and could expect promotion on merit; the Australians welcomed African-American servicemen in a way that shocked American sensibilities.</u> You'll notice the main change is a large uncited segment suggesting that Australian units were not segregated, gave equal pay to all soldiers, promoted them on merit, and welcomed African American servicemen into Australia. Let's start with the "welcomed African-American servicemen", Saunders (1995) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2784641?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents] has this to say on the topic; {{tq|Having been forced to accept Black GI's, both the Commonwealth and Queensland governments negotiated and established, complex, interlinking patters of segregation to contain this unwanted inclusion in the allied forces}}. Page 153 of [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=28swBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA152&dq=African+American+servicemen+in+australia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8hJKp5oLSAhWMp5QKHWvTD-0QuwUILTAB#v=onepage&q=African%20American%20servicemen%20in%20australia&f=false The American Occupation of Australia, 1941-45: A Marriage of Necessity] by John McKerrow has this to say as well; {{tq|The management of race by American authorities in Australia was neither as strictly segregated as Australian governments would have liked ... Australian leaders did not want African American troops because of the country's longstanding prohibition of non-white immigration ... Politicans recoiled at the notion of introducing thousands of black military personnel even temporarily}}. On the bright side, however; {{tq|civilians for the most part welcomed African American troops and relations were generally good. However ... a minority of Australians hated the black presence and wanted these soldiers gone}}. I am yet to find any evidence that Americans were shocked at the treatment African American GI's received in Australia. Not that that would meet NPOV requirements as "shocked American sensibilities" is hardly a neutral statement. To summarize; they were hated by the government, segregated from white GI's with the assistance of the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, but to support the content to some extent, generally accepted and treated well by the Australian people. The other issue I have is with "equal pay and promotions based on merit", refer to [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=e1GkEaQmN7IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Aborigines+in+WW2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz4bLH6YLSAhXIjpQKHfsKAkUQuwUIHDAA#v=onepage&q=segregation&f=false Defending Whose Country?: Indigenous Soldiers in the Pacific War] by Noah Riseman; page 13 - {{tq|the Aboriginal workforce received less pay than soldiers ... in fact army officials discouraged paying equal wages ... because they did not consider Aboriginal people as equals}}. Page 15 - {{tq|Even in the process of accepting Torres Strait Islander enlistees, racial hierarchical ideas came to play to reject Aboriginal people}} and {{tq|recruiters accidentally did enlist some Aboriginal soldiers}}. The result is; {{tq|Thus the entire relationship between Australian military and Aboriginal people was one of unequal power relations and control}}. He concludes the introduction on the next page with {{tq|Granted, sometimes conditions were an improvement over the prior experience of Australian indigenous people, but they ''never'' placed Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people on equal footing with white personnel}}. Emphasis is the author's, not mine. So to recap; equal pay and meritocracy? hardly, Aborigines were treated like second class citizens and entitled to lower wages than the average soldier, no mention of a meritocratic system, but, no explicit mention against. That said, they weren't even accepted into the military until the end of 1941. Segregation? no per page 12; {{tq|By 1940 as the demand for Aboriginal labor increased, the Department of Native Affairs was espousing policies of assimilation. Nonetheless there were calls to segregate the two races in the military}}. Treatement of African Americans? split, the government hated them, though they were generally treated well by Australian civilians, but, not always. Can't say about military personnel, didn't find anything. So let's look at my edit summary; {{tq|The stuff about Australian troops treating Aborigines more kindly, is a complete fabrication not mentioned in either of the cited sources}}. Seems about right doesn't it? second class citizens with only minor improvements in living conditions from where they started, but, definitely not on any kind of equal footing. I'd correlate it directly to African American and White American relations. African American GI's were probably better off than African American non-GI's but they sure were second in line to white Americans. I fail to see what distinguishes US-AfAm relations and AUS-Abo relations. All of that said however, Senor Freebie, I did find the source for the uncited material on the Australian government website [http://www.dva.gov.au/i-am/aboriginal-andor-torres-strait-islander/indigenous-australians-war Department of Veteran's Affaris]. {{u|Nick-D}}, do you think the source is reliable? To quote; {{tq|Indigenous servicemen in regular the militia, AIF, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal Australian Navy (RAN) received equal pay (almost unheard-of in civilian jobs), could expect promotion on merit, and forged friendships with white men}}. I don't know how to approach a .gov source for Australia, some .gov sources are very much partisan, but, I'm not sure how true that's going to be for Australia. Cheers, [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 11:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:21, 9 February 2017
Repeated addition of controversial material
Do not reintroduce controversial material once challenged and removed from an article as you have done at Battle of Brisbane without consensus. Repeatedly doing so is considered to be a form of disruptive editing. If you do so again, you may be blocked from editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The contents was removed after consensus from registered users, when an IP user, repeatedly deleted it, and refused to continue discussion of their intentions. Their claims were demonstrably false, and your intervention is unhelpful, your threats, and accusations ridiculous.Senor Freebie (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Once an addition to an article is challenged by reversion it must not be re-added to the article w/o talk page consensus which I am not seeing. At this point you appear to be edit warring. Also please do not respond to attempts at discussion with personal attacks or other uncivil commentary and or edit summaries. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you really calling the existence of segregation controversial? This is utterly ridiculous.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- A read of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth may be useful here. As rnddude put it, "what's written in the article is not what is written in [source 2]". Certainly your statements may well be true; if however the sources only support some of those statements, and not all of them, then the unsupported statements need to be removed. Nobody has called into question the existence of segregation, not even the IP, who has merely disputed whether the sources support the fact that segregation was a contributing factor to the Battle of Brisbane. Alcherin (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you really calling the existence of segregation controversial? This is utterly ridiculous.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Once an addition to an article is challenged by reversion it must not be re-added to the article w/o talk page consensus which I am not seeing. At this point you appear to be edit warring. Also please do not respond to attempts at discussion with personal attacks or other uncivil commentary and or edit summaries. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Senor Freebie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The admin who has blocked me either has a clear ideological reason for blocking me, or has not bothered to read the contents of the discussion at Battle of Brisbane. A segment of that article was deleted without discussion, and I restored and improved it while discussing the reasons for this with a number of users. The IP user who deleted the segment initially engaged in that discussion, but when it became clear that they'd lost the argument, they ceased discussion, and made bad faith undos, and edits, with deliberately misleading edit summaries. I have tried to discuss this in a civil, but bold fashion with the admin who became involved, but they have refused to engage or explain their behaviour. Segregation in the US military during IS a fact. I cannot believe that I have to argue that in 2017, on Wikipedia. Senor Freebie (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not the place to argue about your content dispute, and attacking the blocking admin will certainly not get you unblocked. You must not edit war, regardless of who is right, and that is what you must address if you want to be unblocked. Please do take note of what Ad Orientem says below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
@Boing! said Zebedee:Ad Orientem has said that I was warned repeatedly, but as is clear on this page, there is only 1 warning above. They have also said that I made personal attacks, without referring to them. Now you also say that I have attacked them, when I have simply described behaviour that is easily demonstrable. Please explain to me how this constitutes an attack, when I am simply trying to get them to reflect on what I view as incorrect statements. Surely this is not Wikipedia's definition of a personal attack. If this was the case, then you could never address incorrect decisions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- You were edit warring at that article, "The admin who has blocked me either has a clear ideological reason for blocking me..." is a bad faith accusation that will not help you get unblocked, and this talk page is not the place to continue your content argument. And you've been here long enough to know those things. I want to see you unblocked as soon as possible and back to editing, but there's really no way any admin could have accepted that request. It's up to you whether you want to try a different approach or whether you prefer to sit out the 24 hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by what I said. The other admin has refused to clarify what they meant by a personal attack, when asked repeatedly, and claims that I was warned multiple times, when it is clear above that I was not. My statement was not in bad faith, given this context, especially since this admin has levelled similar accusations against me, without even specifying why. I'm very disappointed to see that you are ignoring that. This is an egregious outcome.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- There are multiple personal attacks in that article talk page. You stop them or you face further blocks - it is as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by what I said. The other admin has refused to clarify what they meant by a personal attack, when asked repeatedly, and claims that I was warned multiple times, when it is clear above that I was not. My statement was not in bad faith, given this context, especially since this admin has levelled similar accusations against me, without even specifying why. I'm very disappointed to see that you are ignoring that. This is an egregious outcome.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)- You have been warned repeatedly about edit warring and your uncivil attacks on other editors. Further edit warring and or personal attacks will result in a longer block. I have removed the section in dispute and it is NOT to be re-added until there is talk page consensus on its exact wording. For the record I have also blocked the IP for 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is only 1 warning above, and you have stated incorrectly that I've made personal attacks on other users. I would like to know your reason for that. The talk page IS in consensus about the segment remaining. There are issues about which content within that segment is adequately sourced, but there are other ways, such as a citation needed flag, for addressing that. The current behaviour of the IP user is demonstrably in bad faith, and I honestly have to question your behaviour too, for your false accusations of personal attacks.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you do not understand that your attacks on other editors, accusing them of bad faith editing, being trolls and or favoring racial segregation is unacceptable, then you are forcing me to question whether you are capable of contributing to the project without causing serious disruption. As for edit warring that is even more beyond doubt. You and the IP have both repeatedly violated 3RR despite numerous warnings. I have appealed to both of you without success. So we are where we are. Stop edit warring and moderate your tone in talk page discussions or this is not going to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I can demonstrate the things that I claim, something I've asked you to do repeatedly. And in doing so, I would be demonstrating that you have not adequately investigated this issue before intervening. You keep on referring to numerous warnings, yet you've only made one above, and you refused to clarify the circumstances in which you made the others, on another user's talk page. How can I possibly think that you're acting in good faith given this context? And are you really making an implied threat, to ban me from editing altogether? Because if so, you ought to make that boldly, and using the appropriate template, rather than through subtle, mistakable statements.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- There have been multiple warnings, here and on the article talk page, that the aggressive edit warring has to stop. I'm giving you one final one now - no more edit warring and no more snarky personal attacks on those who disagree with you (such as calling them trolls, vandals, etc, and all the other insults you have leveled at them), or you will face further action. This has gone on for months, and it will stop! I'm certainly not blaming you alone for the dispute, and neither is Ad Orientem - both edit warring parties were blocked, and the same future sanctions are hanging over everyone. But you stop the aggressive and attacking approach now, or you will be stopped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I can demonstrate the things that I claim, something I've asked you to do repeatedly. And in doing so, I would be demonstrating that you have not adequately investigated this issue before intervening. You keep on referring to numerous warnings, yet you've only made one above, and you refused to clarify the circumstances in which you made the others, on another user's talk page. How can I possibly think that you're acting in good faith given this context? And are you really making an implied threat, to ban me from editing altogether? Because if so, you ought to make that boldly, and using the appropriate template, rather than through subtle, mistakable statements.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you do not understand that your attacks on other editors, accusing them of bad faith editing, being trolls and or favoring racial segregation is unacceptable, then you are forcing me to question whether you are capable of contributing to the project without causing serious disruption. As for edit warring that is even more beyond doubt. You and the IP have both repeatedly violated 3RR despite numerous warnings. I have appealed to both of you without success. So we are where we are. Stop edit warring and moderate your tone in talk page discussions or this is not going to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is only 1 warning above, and you have stated incorrectly that I've made personal attacks on other users. I would like to know your reason for that. The talk page IS in consensus about the segment remaining. There are issues about which content within that segment is adequately sourced, but there are other ways, such as a citation needed flag, for addressing that. The current behaviour of the IP user is demonstrably in bad faith, and I honestly have to question your behaviour too, for your false accusations of personal attacks.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And if you want specific examples of your attacks/insults/accusations, here are several from the article talk page:
- "At this point, your behaviour is more troll-like than even ideological and biased".
- "I'm not sure where you came from, or why you think you can take ownership of this article".
- "IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing"
- "the new user, who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion"
- "the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus"
And in edit summaries:
- "IP user is lying"
"Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page"(My error, apologies)- "Undoing bad faith editing"
- "Not disputed by registered users" (implying that IPs are inferior users)
It did not take me long to find those examples, and in the material I examined I did not see a single snark/insult/accusation made by anyone else - while the edit warring is certainly two-sided, the snark is all one-sided and is all coming from you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- In response to your above comment:
- "At this point, your behaviour is more troll-like than even ideological and biased". - This was in response to the IP user deliberately mis-representing another user's argument, in a plain, and clear to see fashion, after they had engaged in edit-warring, despite the repeated warnings.
- "I'm not sure where you came from, or why you think you can take ownership of this article". - I was mistaken here. I had not realised that I was simultaneously responding to the same user in 2 separate places. Without that context. There is no insult in the above comment.
- "IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing". - Edit warring, particularly after being warned is bad faith. Removing content without discussion, and in contradiction of discussion is bad faith. Do I need to provide diffs for this?
- "the new user, who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion" - Stated fact. Check the diffs.
- "the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus" - Again, related to the above comment about trolling.
And as for edit summaries:
- "IP user is lying ... Section was discussed, and new content was added, per discussion, to more accurately reflect the source material." - followed immediately after this blatant lie and personal attack against me: "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page."
- "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page" ... you're kidding me right? Seriously? I demand an apology for this.
- My mistake, I misread that one, so I have struck it and I do apologize for the error. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- "Undoing bad faith editing." ... did you read the remainder of that edit summary? Or the diff?
- "Not disputed by registered users" ... This was not the implication. This comes almost immediately after this comment from another user; "Revert anon. He has been given sources for the content." which is functionally identical.
- I'm not going to debate this with you. Your above responses strongly suggest that you just don't get it. Two admins have told you repeatedly to moderate your manner of communicating with other editors. If you choose to ignore this you are heading for another block. And no, this is not a threat. It is however a Final Warning in my capacity as an administrator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I need to strongly reiterate that I do not believe that you have adequately explained yourself. The other admin attempted to help you by listing personal attacks that I allegedly made, including this one: "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page", which was by far the worst of that admin's accusations. I challenge you to read it, and consider what it says for a moment, to determine whether or not I am being treated fairly...
- Threatened with blocks for having personal attacks levelled against me. Worst still. Having those very same personal attacks used as evidence that I am in the wrong.
- I have acted fairly, and with appropriate candour, within my understanding of the Wikipedia rules, including the requirement to be bold.
- You cannot simply keep on saying that I should 'get it', when you have not once explained yourself.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, I think you've had all the explanation you are going to get (and I think the explanations are more than adequate). You have had your final warnings from two of us - whether you think your snark is justified or not, you simply need to stop it now and adjust your style of interaction with others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have not had an explanation from the original admin. He has levelled multiple, severe attacks and accusations against me, without providing a single bit of evidence or explanation, and in his defence the worst you could find was a very severe, and deliberately dishonest personal attack made against me. If you can't stop for a second and understand why I might be this frustrated by the process I have gone through, after I made the initial attempt to get the page protected, then I don't know what else to say. I will be seeking outside opinions as broadly as I can unless you see fit to review the actions taken here, in detail.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- See my reply to you on Boing's talk page. Beyond that ANI is this way but I STRONGLY urge you to read WP:BOOMERANG before going there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have not had an explanation from the original admin. He has levelled multiple, severe attacks and accusations against me, without providing a single bit of evidence or explanation, and in his defence the worst you could find was a very severe, and deliberately dishonest personal attack made against me. If you can't stop for a second and understand why I might be this frustrated by the process I have gone through, after I made the initial attempt to get the page protected, then I don't know what else to say. I will be seeking outside opinions as broadly as I can unless you see fit to review the actions taken here, in detail.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, I think you've had all the explanation you are going to get (and I think the explanations are more than adequate). You have had your final warnings from two of us - whether you think your snark is justified or not, you simply need to stop it now and adjust your style of interaction with others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to debate this with you. Your above responses strongly suggest that you just don't get it. Two admins have told you repeatedly to moderate your manner of communicating with other editors. If you choose to ignore this you are heading for another block. And no, this is not a threat. It is however a Final Warning in my capacity as an administrator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I retract my comment above about being mistaken regarding rnddude; "rnddude ... I'm not sure where you came from, or why you think you can take ownership of this article, including stating that clearly cited information is 'ficticious', but you need to at least acknowledge the lengthy discussion above, rather than simply chatting to an IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing." - the full context of this is a reply to his edit summary, which was as follows: "The stuff about Australian troops treating Aborigines more kindly, is a complete fabrication not mentioned in either of the cited sources."
At the time, there was an ongoing discussion, that had determined that this information was in the source material. The bold claim that the information was a fabrication was clearly incorrect. Notably, that user has not returned after having this pointed out via additional sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)- I do not like blocking people. PLEASE stop your endless snark and drama. If you persist, and I'm very afraid that you will, this is going to end with a long term block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Senor Freebie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been asking, consistently, for the blocking admin to explain his previous warnings, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Please_apologise.| personal attacks and accusations]], and that user has consistently refused to explain themselves. I just found the admin [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Senor_Freebie| colluding with another]], to reinforce their attacks without, I believe, appropriate scrutiny, and I have demonstrated that not only were many of the allegations made by the second admin against me false, but that this situation began when I was attacked by another user. [[User:Senor Freebie|Senor Freebie]] ([[User talk:Senor Freebie#top|talk]]) 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been asking, consistently, for the blocking admin to explain his previous warnings, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Please_apologise.| personal attacks and accusations]], and that user has consistently refused to explain themselves. I just found the admin [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Senor_Freebie| colluding with another]], to reinforce their attacks without, I believe, appropriate scrutiny, and I have demonstrated that not only were many of the allegations made by the second admin against me false, but that this situation began when I was attacked by another user. [[User:Senor Freebie|Senor Freebie]] ([[User talk:Senor Freebie#top|talk]]) 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been asking, consistently, for the blocking admin to explain his previous warnings, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Please_apologise.| personal attacks and accusations]], and that user has consistently refused to explain themselves. I just found the admin [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Senor_Freebie| colluding with another]], to reinforce their attacks without, I believe, appropriate scrutiny, and I have demonstrated that not only were many of the allegations made by the second admin against me false, but that this situation began when I was attacked by another user. [[User:Senor Freebie|Senor Freebie]] ([[User talk:Senor Freebie#top|talk]]) 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Colluding? Seriously? Your gross and flagrant attacks on other editors, yes including myself and Boing! said Zebedee, have reached the point where I am just not going to put up with it anymore. Your editing history speaks for itself as do the comments and warnings running across four talk pages now. If you engage in another such attack I will extend your block and revoke your editing privileges on your talk page. Enough is enough. This disruption is coming to an end one way or another. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- In regards to the comment on collusion. I made that immediately after finding out that the review for my previous block was conducted by someone that Ad Orientem specifically called for said review, while making what I view to be a personal attack against me. Said personal attack may have led to mistakes in the judgement of the other admin, which they have since apologised for. This is without a doubt a non-independent process, and having only just discovered this at the time, I used the first word that came to mind to describe it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note to reviewing admin: My above comment is without prejudice to your own review of the unblock request. If you think I am wrong, let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is my firm belief that you are the source of this disruption, not me. You appear, at least to me, to be continuing to engage in this in an nonconstructive manner despite my repeated requests for constructive criticism, over personal attacks. If my editing history speaks for itself, point out what's wrong with it. Please.
- That you're not doing so is denying me even the remotest chance of the right of reply. I do not know what I am accused of, because you have only referred to it in the most general, and often (again in my view) contradictory terms.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- As you using this talk page to continue making personal attacks (and escalating them) and to continue the drama, while totally refusing to consider that anything you have done or said could possibly have been in the slightest bit wrong (despite a clear agreement between two admins here and a third party at the article talk page), I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. And I think that is for your own good - had you been allowed to continue like this, I think the block would have been extended. If the admin who reviews this request disagrees with me, they are welcome to reinstate that privilege - but either way, please do listen to whatever the reviewer says, as you are very close to your last chance for stick-dropping now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Here, instead of Ad Orientem, I'll do it with regards to the comments you left for Nick-D. I'll start with a clarification;
Can I ask which claims you thought I was referring to, and why you feel like it's justified to level a personal attack against me?
. Their saying that they're skeptical of your approach is not a personal attack. It's a simple criticism of your approach and does not call into question your being in any sense of the term. Contrarily, you have suggested that Nick-D is pushing a narrative with your reply here;Also, can you please acknowledge the other sourced material about similar conflicts in NZ and Britain that I included, which runs contrary to the narrative you're trying to support?
Are you suggesting that Nick is POV pushing?
I'll also take a segment to address your comment above somewhere regarding suggesting I am OWNing the article, which you retracted and have now unretracted. Not to mention suggested that I have now left the discussion because my position has been disproven and what ... left me too embarrassed to show my face? what's the implication. I haven't been to active over the past week or so. You could have at least shown the fortitude to say it to me directly, rather than on a page where I have been otherwie uninvolved.
Let's start with the edit you're calling out here; [1]. Let's skip the edit summary for a minute here and actually look at the content of my edit. You know, the thing that gives context to my edit summary. My edit had two effects, 1. changing the title of the segment from "Differing views on race" to just "Views on race", and far more importantly 2. I removed the portions of the following section which I have underlined to highlight Although white Australians had traditionally treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks,[1] this changed markedly from 1940 when indigenous servicemen (Australian units were not segregated) were given equal pay and conditions and could expect promotion on merit; the Australians welcomed African-American servicemen in a way that shocked American sensibilities. You'll notice the main change is a large uncited segment suggesting that Australian units were not segregated, gave equal pay to all soldiers, promoted them on merit, and welcomed African American servicemen into Australia. Let's start with the "welcomed African-American servicemen", Saunders (1995) [2] has this to say on the topic;Having been forced to accept Black GI's, both the Commonwealth and Queensland governments negotiated and established, complex, interlinking patters of segregation to contain this unwanted inclusion in the allied forces
. Page 153 of The American Occupation of Australia, 1941-45: A Marriage of Necessity by John McKerrow has this to say as well;The management of race by American authorities in Australia was neither as strictly segregated as Australian governments would have liked ... Australian leaders did not want African American troops because of the country's longstanding prohibition of non-white immigration ... Politicans recoiled at the notion of introducing thousands of black military personnel even temporarily
. On the bright side, however;civilians for the most part welcomed African American troops and relations were generally good. However ... a minority of Australians hated the black presence and wanted these soldiers gone
. I am yet to find any evidence that Americans were shocked at the treatment African American GI's received in Australia. Not that that would meet NPOV requirements as "shocked American sensibilities" is hardly a neutral statement. To summarize; they were hated by the government, segregated from white GI's with the assistance of the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, but to support the content to some extent, generally accepted and treated well by the Australian people. The other issue I have is with "equal pay and promotions based on merit", refer to Defending Whose Country?: Indigenous Soldiers in the Pacific War by Noah Riseman; page 13 -the Aboriginal workforce received less pay than soldiers ... in fact army officials discouraged paying equal wages ... because they did not consider Aboriginal people as equals
. Page 15 -Even in the process of accepting Torres Strait Islander enlistees, racial hierarchical ideas came to play to reject Aboriginal people
andrecruiters accidentally did enlist some Aboriginal soldiers
. The result is;Thus the entire relationship between Australian military and Aboriginal people was one of unequal power relations and control
. He concludes the introduction on the next page withGranted, sometimes conditions were an improvement over the prior experience of Australian indigenous people, but they never placed Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people on equal footing with white personnel
. Emphasis is the author's, not mine. So to recap; equal pay and meritocracy? hardly, Aborigines were treated like second class citizens and entitled to lower wages than the average soldier, no mention of a meritocratic system, but, no explicit mention against. That said, they weren't even accepted into the military until the end of 1941. Segregation? no per page 12;By 1940 as the demand for Aboriginal labor increased, the Department of Native Affairs was espousing policies of assimilation. Nonetheless there were calls to segregate the two races in the military
. Treatement of African Americans? split, the government hated them, though they were generally treated well by Australian civilians, but, not always. Can't say about military personnel, didn't find anything. So let's look at my edit summary;The stuff about Australian troops treating Aborigines more kindly, is a complete fabrication not mentioned in either of the cited sources
. Seems about right doesn't it? second class citizens with only minor improvements in living conditions from where they started, but, definitely not on any kind of equal footing. I'd correlate it directly to African American and White American relations. African American GI's were probably better off than African American non-GI's but they sure were second in line to white Americans. I fail to see what distinguishes US-AfAm relations and AUS-Abo relations. All of that said however, Senor Freebie, I did find the source for the uncited material on the Australian government website Department of Veteran's Affaris. Nick-D, do you think the source is reliable? To quote;Indigenous servicemen in regular the militia, AIF, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal Australian Navy (RAN) received equal pay (almost unheard-of in civilian jobs), could expect promotion on merit, and forged friendships with white men
. I don't know how to approach a .gov source for Australia, some .gov sources are very much partisan, but, I'm not sure how true that's going to be for Australia. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)