User talk:Rechtsstreitigkeiten

May 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Jesselyn Radack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are are making personal attacks, with a false-claim of edit warring. You removed material based on a false supposition (that Fox news investigated itself, which is ever-so bizarre). So with due respect, it's you who deleted data wrongfully. I put a third-party sourced sentence, and you keep deleting it on what's an apparent literal technicality. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never made the supposition that Fox investigated itself. And "edit warring" is not limited to who is right and who is wrong. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Edit warring. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, there's two separate issues here:

(1) The sentence about media bias (which absolutely belongs in there).

(2) Earlier reliable source issues.

(1: The sentence about media bias) is the issue at-hand. My being "right" is actually pertinant, because I'm right (you made a false-claim and deleted), and you are trying to trip me up into a situation whereby I'll be blocked for forcing the issue (that I'm right). That's gaming the system, and it's unethical behavior on your part.

RS (2) of the prior experts is an issue for another day, as far as I'm concerned. I have work to do.

You're bad behavior, however, is inspiration to deal with the one-sentence. I wonder:why do you care about it?

Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not trying to trip you up into being blocked. I am trying to get you to edit in proper cooperative manner and in line with Wikipedia standards. Why do I care about it? It's like almost every one of the thousands of edits I've done on Wikipedia - I'm trying to get Wikipedia closer to its ideal state. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. An idealist. I'm doomed. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NedFausa (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that. You grossly distorted the facts. Well done. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Rechtsstreitigkeiten. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. El_C 20:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest here[edit]

This isn't a conflict of interest. I don't know the parties. I certainly don't work for any of them. I've followed the lawsuit closely for two years online (it's quite a story). I guess you can block me if you like to block people who read lawsuits, or who study things, but isn't that the point of having an encyclopedia? Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this case is online, on PACER. That, and there's been huge skimish's on twitter. Hundreds of people know about this case, and I'm one of them. It's a very dramatic situation. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Jesselyn Radack and Talk:Jesselyn Radack[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing and living persons policy violations.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:57, 14 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was just editing a case that I've followed for the past two years. I find myself accused of working for the persons involved (FALSE) and of making salacious claims (FALSE - the case facts are salacious, I mentioned a few of them, and if I offended anyone, I'm sorry). There's a protection order for witnesses in this case (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376.79.0.pdf), because there have been threats of violence thrown about. So I'm using a SPA (Special Purpose Account). I didn't hide it at all, evidence by the name I used. Blocking me is unjust. I was making valid contributions to the page. In fact, I had a pending dispute about one sentence that I was debating with NatGerler. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are already contesting this over at WP:ANI. It would be premature to lift the block at this time. Please achieve a consensus at WP:ANI to have your block lifted. Yamla (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2020 (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.

Quick correction: that's single-purpose account, not special purpose account. El_C 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtsstreitigkeiten, just in case there's any confusion, you're not blocked sitewide. Rather, you're only partially blocked from those 2 pages. You may still contribute to the ongoing ANI report. El_C 14:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there EL_C, thanks for touching base, that's kind of you. I just logged-in to briefly answer you. Contrary to the false-statements made, I don't work as a wikipedia editor, I have a job, i.e. deadlings, things to do, obligations, and meetings (one today, virtual) and deadlines. I do have to answer why I put that edit statement on there, and there was a good reason (I was trying to make-clear that this was a "malicious prosecution and libel", not just "libel" - this was a debate I was having with the guy who put me on ANI. The guy who put me up for blocking reverted a significant change, on the allegation that am "blocked indefinately", i.e. there's a way to settle a debate. Put someone in front of ANI for their SPA name (snort).

I was trying to explain "just how egregious" the case-story was, and why it's important that it be (correctly) named "malicious prosecution and defamation", not "libel", which is what's written there. That's why I got-into the gorey details of what-happened (basically a "luring", as a form of entrapment, then an accusation - all of which fell-apart, because the guy luckily kept the text-messages). In doing that, I wrote the details of the "luring" and they are salacious. I didn't do that to be defamatory on WP. I did it because there's a "thing done" by men who've been accused of sexual harassment/assault, i.e. they countersue. Weinstein did that. Cosby did it. It's a classic horrid thing predators do to women. And that's what's on the page, and it's not accurate.

A lawsuit for libel (against an accusation of sexual assault) was done by Cosby and Weinstein: and they wound-up being convicted.

This wasn't that. This was a situation where someone was accused of rape, and the evidence was so strong (and as you rightly pointed out 'salacious') to show that no rape occurred (consensual) that they sued for malicious prosecution.

Anyway, I'll word this better on ANI. But I wasn't trying to be defamatory. I was trying to make sure that the accurate info got put on the page. Then I wrote the details of the case on the page (which are truly awful, salacious and "over the top" but they are documented stuff). Now do they belong on a Wikipedia page? NO WAY. Do they belong in an edit summary? Probably not, either. I was stressed-out and busy and frankly I didn't think carefully before putting those words in the edit summary. I was just typing quickly, in the spirit of discussing the malicious prosecution element (and I finally showed the settlement to prove the point further - the title of the settlement is 'malicious prosecution and defamation'), not "libel".

I'll post publicly on ANI in a few hours. I have until midnight to turn something in (deadlines) so I'll do it tonight. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]