User talk:Crossthets/archive2

Finally figured out how to create subpage
Please address any lingering comments from my archived talkpage on this one. Thanks Crossthets (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Well, this is basically something that has come up many times in the past few years, and most Greek users are fine with mentioning these names in the intro. Per Consensus, we should probably go with the majority view. Many of the Albanian users disagreed with having the Greek names at Himarë, Sarandë, Gjirokastër, and Vlorë, yet the agreement between the Albanian and Greek users was to include the historical names at the top of the page, just like in the Greek articles. You are correct that the Balkans are an extremely sensitive area with regards to names, and this is why we have a current consensus that should not be broken unless there is a general agreement of most editors to remove the names from all those articles. If we start moving these names down to the history section, the Turkish editors will want to move the Greek names further down, the Albanian users will most likely want to do the same. Such changes should not be done without the larger agreement of the entire community of Balkan-editors. Turks still live on the islands of Kos and Rhodes for example, so the argument the Turkish names only being historical are moot IMO. Komotini is inhabited by both Greek and Turkish speakers as well.

My main concern was that your edits were unilateral. Yes, it's good to be bold, but not when these pages were like this for years. Quite frankly if I hadn't reverted your edits, someone else would have. Khoikhoi 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your user page
Crossthets, can you please remove the political material from your user page? Please see the guideline at WP:USER, which lists, among other things: Thank you, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
 * Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia


 * I'm assuming given your extensive article edits (that seem to show you focus on finding ways to deny the Greek Macedonian identity)... you are primarily referring to my Macedonia comments. The comments are intended for future use in Wikipedia and have been added to my user page as a central repository of pertinent facts I feel are currently missing from the Macedonia related issues (aka a "to do" list). For example...


 * historical facts pertaining to Alexander the Great's ethnicity as Greek (or do you deny this is fact?)
 * verifiable quotes by prominent FYROM government officials admitting they have no relationship to Alexander/ancient Macedon and are Slavic. (which is relevant to the naming dispute article which already brings up these historical concerns)
 * the US Congress resolution condemning FYROM for hostile propaganda against Greeks (many of whom I believe can be found on Wikipedia due to its effects)
 * clear examples of irredentist anti-Greek propaganda by FYROM government and citizens... which are relevant to Greece's claim that FYROM have irredentist goals. (e.g. a "human rights" parade where a large group of FYROM nationalists displayed a banner advocating Greece's second largest city belongs to FYROM, the PM of FYROM laying a wreath where there is a map of FYROM including 1/3 of Greece, etc..)


 * Wikipedia guidelines do allow for a "to do" list but as I have temporarily stitched them into a bit of a narrative along with my personal material (until I find time to discuss the points for inclusion on article pages) I would be willing to rephrase if you could you be more specific. (i.e. please list line-by-line that you feel needs editing or is factually inaccurate) Thanks. Crossthets (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

... Note: Futper just threatened to block me on my user page (check history subject) without addressing my points. Adding diff references where Futper was been warned several times about abusing his admin powers to silence users where he demonstrates a potential conflict-of-interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=240630827&oldid=240622346 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crossthets/archive1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=227239028&oldid=227233893

Crossthets (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to spell out to you "line by line" what political soapboxing is. Especially since you apparently are incapable of interacting with me without accusing me of being a "FYROM supporter" in every second sentence. Now, look and learn, that passage you had on your user page, that is what we call political soapboxing here. Try working your brains to find out why that may be. Warning stands, and I will not hesitate to block you again, as I did earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you now now have decided to reword your complaint as "political soapboxing" rather than your prior


 * Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
 * Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia

. As I said.... the sections are intended as a to-do list and I would be willing to reword sections at hand if you have specific complaints. Instead you constantly threaten me with blocks over disputed edits (and you do have a anti-Greek POV). Again I remind you of Wikipedia admin rules....

'''An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest. For instance, an admin blocking a user for an edit war involving that same admin is abusing his or her power'''

Are you blocking me over an edit dispute between us here? Seems so to me. Since you don't appear interested in discussing the matter further or handing the issue to an another admin (who doesn't have a long history with threatening me) I recommend you block me now and we let the appeals process decide how "neutral" you are. --Crossthets (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The timing is up to you. You'll be blocked if and when you decide to restore that material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

done. --Crossthets (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it. I noticed you've mass reverted my userpage a third time but haven't blocked me yet. I'm going to bed now but I plan to start an extensive appeal process once you've followed through with yet another blocking threat. There is not much I can do about it when the same admin keeps threatening me with blocks. No matter what happens I just wish to state for the record this isn't in the least personal on my part. --Crossthets (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * About your edit summaries, could you place them after the */ please? The point of those is to show which section is being edited for ease of use.  Balkan Fever  05:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to explain a convention (and I want to comply) but I'm not 100% sure what your tip means. Could you please rephrase?Crossthets (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Section edit summaries (where you click on an edit link rather than "edit this page" begin automatically with /* The section name */ . Usually people looking at a page history or watchlist will try to determine where an edit occured without actually clicking on the edit.  Adding your manually created edit summary first may disrupt this.  For purposes of explanation, I'll add in some text to the edit summary for this edit.  Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've tried to listen to both your explanations. Did I do my edit summary correctly in this instance? --Crossthets (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes.  Balkan Fever  07:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Two successful transactions in one night. Perhaps there is hope for us yet. :) --Crossthets (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FPaS' antisocial, incivil conduct
Hello. Have a look here. Moreover, I believe you should ask the intervention of a truly (you see, FPaS hangs around WP IRC channels a lot; along other "buddies") neutral admin. ktr (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice, ktr. And Wikipedia is still not a soapbox, as most admins will tell you. Removed again, do not reinsert. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism is not a good thing, Moreschi; esp. in WIKIPEDIA, The Free Encyclopedia. ktr (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Free" does not mean "free-for-all soapboxing session". Revert me one more time and you will be blocked. Moreschi (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a good day, Moreschi; O Great and Vigilant Guardian of WP. ktr (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock
I'm a newb that has officially complained to Futper about his uncivil behavior and seeming conflict-of-interest before. Futper also displays a trolling pattern and harassment in his edits against Greek Macedonians (I can provide an extensive listing of diffs on request). For instance he name called me in the past (on only my first discussion with him as a newb) using the word clueless, suggesting I'm insane, and immediately threatening a block despite that I had no prior history). The Wikipedia admin code of conduct  admin code of conduct suggests...


 * Like everybody else, admins are expected to behave in a civil manner


 * Admins should also be aware that warning a user of a block, especially when the user has no prior history of problems, can be perceived as a threat.


 * Admins should never use their admin abilities to intimidate others. For instance, threatening a user with an inappropriate block is just as bad behavior as actually making that block

I requested an alternate neutral more professional admin to handle any complaints with me. Instead he just ignored that request and blocked me. He has now just blocked me a second time over his own edit warring (on my own user page of all places) despite that the admin code of conduct explicitly states....


 * An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest. For instance, an admin blocking a user for an edit war involving that same admin is abusing his or her power 

In this particular instance Futper blocked me for changing back my own user page (which I did only twice in 24 hours and which he threatened to block me on only my first revert). This despite me repeatedly asking him for further details on what he wants me to specifically edit out of my userpage to change it from what he feels is "political soapboxing" into what I've told him was intended as a list of things to things to do on Wikipedia (which IS explicitly allowed by Wikipedia guidelines for userpages).

I stated to him I was fully willing to make changes if he would just provide me specific passages. Instead he refused to do so and just did repeated blanket mass edit of a jumble of facts and comments that seem to conflict with his pro-FYROM/Republic of Macedonia world view. In so doing [| Futper broke] Wikipedia's the three-revert rule  Even in the event Futper is is right in this instance (dubious given he wouldn't answer with specifics when I offered to make changes).... it does not appear to be an exception for admins


 * With regard to simple misbehavior, admins are treated identically to regular users; for instance, a three-revert violation can be sanctioned with a 24-hour block.

There is currently a a request for comments on Futper from several other users that are all complaining about his disruptive and intimidating and uncivil behavior. I realize that admins are loath to knock down other admins but I like to think most Wikipedia admins are professional and follow their own rules.... especially when so many users are complaining about the exact same admin. Therefore I would appreciate at least a temporary unblock so I can add my comments to to his complaint page about him. Furthermore I ask that you consider that Futper needs to be at least temporarily blocked (or have his admin powers temporarily revoked) for his pattern of ignoring Wikipedia admin code of conduct by threatening/blocking users inappropriately.

Thank-you for listening to my concerns. --Crossthets (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I just realized the link that was provided to me by another user above was dated 30 August 2008 and lasts only 48 hours. (i.e. it's no good). I obviously can't make the complaint then but still officially ask that my block be lifted.

...

Todd. I'd appreciate some addition details as to why you feel this is a "solid block"(especially given the numerous issues). If you could at least break it down further for me it might assist me in future dealings with Futper.

1. What assurances do I have that some Wikipedia admins aren't essentially running an old boys network (irc back scratchers) that avoid confrontation with each others turf (other than when two admins go at it) Do you have any official statistics on how often blocks are lifted and how often specific admins are actually blocked for bad behavior?

2. I realize this is an analogy but I'm curious to understand what "conflict of interest" means to you. If a cop is accused of corruption (by me and several others) and that same cop later keeps finding reasons to arrest me.... isn't that a conflict of interest? Shouldn't that job be left to other cops that aren't a conflict of interest?

In addition... despite that he is a prolific contributor Futper seems to display an edited pattern that IMO seems to be anti-Greek (again I can provide diffs and I'm sure many other contributors would agree with me). He then later on seemingly uses his admin power to block users/facts that relate to his pro-FYROM POV in the related articles he contributes to (namely Macedonia/Greece/FYROM related issues). Isn't that also a potential source for a conflict-of-interest?

3. Does the three revert rule not apply to admins when they are editing a newb's user page? (especially when I've requested details as to what passages he specifically found offensive so I can edit them)

4. I noticed on your user page you say "This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks". Futper on only my first chat with him as a newb said to me....



Does Futper suggesting I;'m insane, irrational, and calling me clueless fit the mold of your "strict policy against personal attacks"? Does this mean you believe it is perfectly acceptable Wikipedia conduct if other people call Futper clueless, insane and irrational?

--Crossthets (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One more item I forgot.

5. As previously mentioned to Futper I want to use my talk page to act as a central reference for what specific points I have discussed and haven't discussed (a to-do list). Can you please point me to a page that demonstrate what a userpage "to-do" list looks like that includes a large number of specific points? (Seeing as Futper refuses to identify a valid list but likes to block me for it).

... Please Note Another (unsolicited) user that has had problems with Futper in the past posted here. Futper apparently has had priorcomplaints) in August. I asked the user how to go about starting another mass complaint against Futper....at which point Futper removed both his and my edits. (making it appear like Futper is trying to tamper with options in my appeal process) Again... I view such behavior as conflict-of-interest and protest any edit removals performed by Futper who appears to be using his admin access as a personal vendetta tool and to promote pro-FYROM nationalist viewpoint) ...

Where exactly were you harassed Futper? Am I not allowed to ask questions about continuing the appeal process? And another question... does Wikipedia admin code of conduct suggest it is alright for you to call you me insane, clueless and irrational? Is it OK if I do it to you?

Sorry... while I appreciate Todd's effort to review my case I fail to follow Todd's logic if he doesn't fully answer my questions. His reasoning appears flawed to me in this instance.

21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Back history for Todd
Todd, I realize you are working with limited information here so let me give you some back history.

The FYROM government (formerly part of communist Yugoslavia) has for the last few years been teaching their kids that parts of Greece belongs to them. They have also been teaching them they are related to the ancient Macedonians (who were Greeks). Greece has previously fought wars with them over these exact same issues (which most people don't know because they are both insignificant countries)

US Secretary of State, E.Stettinius wrote the following on 26.12.1944

"The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece. The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government (of USA) would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of “Macedonian forces” against Greece."

This has resulted in legions of anti-Greek FYROM propagandists (who seem to be trying to ethnically cleanse the Greek Macedonian identify to replace it with their Slavic one)... many of whom I feel are on Wikipedia. Some of them are upfront about it, others are much more sly and pretend they are neutral to manipulate neutral third parties. (why I disclosed my positions upfront)

Perhaps some reading from credible third party sources might help put my complaint into context (i.e. that I'm not just another Wikipedian complaining about censorship and that I may have a valid beef) '''Here is a bi-partisan US Congress resolution introduced last year condemning FYROM for `hostile activities or propaganda' against Greece. '''


 * http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-356

A few facts on FYROM/Greece dispute that I had planned to later include in Macedonia articles. (I stitched it together into sections on my talk page just so the odd user that visited my talk page could understand in context but it was intended as a to-do list)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crossthets&diff=240619732&oldid=240606425

Unfortunately Futper with his anti-Greek POV seems obsessed with making sure no one sees these facts... to the point he trolls my fricken user page looking for an excuse to block me. I've tried to be accommodating to him by asking how to edit it into a form he found more appealing but he has no interest in doing anything but blocking me. If you view his actual article edits with relation to Macedonia (ones older than a few days in case he tries to pretend he's kosher now) you'll see he almost exclusively inserts edits that counter Greek positions. (absurdly unlikely if he were truly neutral) --Crossthets (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Futper soapbox double standards
Btw- Todd just to show a quick recent example of how Futper has double standards... even in this instance (and putting aside I offered to do edits if Futper would have given me specifics).

ΚΕΚΡΩΨ left this message on Futper's talk page today (in a section where I complained about his edit reverse on my user page)


 * Hey FP, nice to see you're now patrolling user pages. Care to remove the "Christian Turks" slur from User:Mactruth's page while you're on a roll, along with the rest of his "political soapboxing"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please make it point to surf to Mactruth user page (a FYROM nationalist). Let me list some of Mactruths non- poltical soapbox comments.

His section on how propaganda works
 * includes some blurb about how Greeks use photoshop to "write false articles time and time again"
 * apparently Bulgarians are trying to suppress him with their lies too
 * I quote you... "Wikipedia is used as a medium to propagate that Macedonia = Greek and ethnic Macedonians = Bulgarians"

in his On the Vergina Sun section
 * Greek Macedonian is a new phenomenon which is comprised of Pontic Greeks, Christian Turks, assimilated ethnic Macedonians/Bulgarians/Vlach and also some Hellenic Greeks just like Ethnic Macedonian is an ethnicity comprised of Vlach/Slavs and some natives of Macedonia who only called themselves Macedonian. (see I'm probably Vlach, Turkish, Slav, Bulgarian, from Fyrom... and hey maybe even Greek)

in his Articles of irresponsible treatment of Macedonians by Greece

Mostly a long list of highly inaccurate sensationalist titles pumped from FYROM news sources (who focus almost exclusively on bashing Greeks). I actually mentioned this list in detail to Futper before (check out my archive to confirm) but apparently he doesn't think that was "political soapboxing" when someone from FYROM does it. For example of the fine reporting...."Greek MP asks for death penalty for Macedonians in Greece". (Funny that news...as Greece doesn't actually have a death penalty.)

Well? Where is futpers outrage over "political soapboxing" over there? (and I would add the page has been around longer than mine and Futper is well aware of the user (he even has comments on his talk page). Nope no double standards at work here. :)

--Crossthets (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Futper anti-Greek FYROM propagandist


This is not what Wikipedia is here for; the content of the encyclopedia is that which is sourced from various media, some of which may contain viewpoints at odds with others - nevertheless, providing that they have some relevance to the article they are used (although not commented upon). If you have any comments regarding perceived bias' within articles then address them according to the conventions on the talkpage - but please do not use WP space to expound upon your interpretation of history, nor to malign individual volunteers. If you are incapable of complying to these conditions (that almost all other contributors do) then I suggest you will soon find another website, either for a short or longer period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note- I followed up on LessHard's remarks on his talk page.--Crossthets (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * link to diff history of discussion with LessHard --Crossthets (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mop up links to discussion with admin Todd regarding Futper/Crossthets
Just a paper trail for future reference (if required).

link to diff on Todds page

link to diff on Futper's talkpage