Talk:Otto Brixner

Import requested

Note to patrollers: there is a pending dewiki transwiki history import request on this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_importation#Import_of_de:Otto_Brixner_to_Otto_Brixner. If this page is patrolled without a deletion nomination, feel free to ping me to complete the request. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Imported history

@Hans Haase: the imported history has been at least temporarily removed pending the disposition of the cleanups at w:de:Otto Brixner. Once that is resolved, feel free to drop an import request back at WP:RFPI. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Hans Haase has been blocked in deWP due to ignoring WP:VD in context of Otto Brixner. A one purpose-account just restored libelous contents in the article ([1]). So the best would be to delete the article and to block these users. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Domitius Ulpianus:, beyond the import history management I don't really have time to work on this. To nominate the entire article for deletion please see WP:AFD, to report abusive users you can use WP:AN/I. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you got the AfD in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Brixner, so the situation can be further dealt with there. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I deleted the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: @Bbb23: and now we will have an attack-article?! --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is inappropriate material in the article, then edit it. You can also use the article Talk page if there is a dispute over your edits. Creating a malformed AfD is not the way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: @Bbb23: the problem is the former revisions that need to be deleted. We had libelous content in this article until this version. These improvements have been reverted by an obvoius sockpuppet today. So what we need is a revert to this version, a revision deletion of all former versions as well as a revision deletion of the reverted version from today. I am not an admin who could do this ... --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think the added content is "libel". I'm not even sure whom you think is being libelled. As for the editor you claim to be an "obvious sock", if it's so obvious, who is the sockmaster? I also am not terribly interested in what is occurring on de.wiki. We are a separate project with our own policies and our own rules, and you, like everyone else here, must comply with them. Thus far, you have not.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: This is because you intervened here without talking to the other admins. Xaosflux already removed imported versions due to libelous content which has been reported by an IP that requestet revision deletion here. There you can see who is libelled and why he is libelled by this article. Thanks --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That is one complicated discussion, and I'm not going to figure out whether there was libel or there is libel. If another administrator wants to do so, that's up to them. At this point, I just want you to comply with the rules. If I understand properly, from your perspective, Brixner is notable. The only problem for you is the added material. An AfD is not the way to solve that problem. You should request that the material be removed and deleted, but you're going to have to be pretty clear as to why. That request can be made at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I have doubts that Brixner is notable AND I think, this article contains libelous material. But thanks for your hint. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

In the German project, users were blamed for something as assuming bad faith. The article should contain facts only. In the moment some German administrators try whitewashing the article, including forcing users edit in a dictated way. There is no assumption, facts only in the article. In the German project, facts have been removed, for purpose of whitewashing the article. An article should clearly inform what happend without harm to anyone. A half truth is no information. It is close to censorship. Ensure, no German or biased users review this article. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you are talking bullshit and you are ignoring the facts which is the reason, why you have been blocked in deWP yesterday. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: In the German Project, a sockpuppet requested to check other accounts for Sockpuppets. The problem is, only one of thoses parties are included in the request, but other IP-users have edited this English article and also the ordered the requests for deletion. These IPs are not ordered to be checked for user accounts behind. And to complete the bias, a furter checkuser request of other parties might be denied in the German project. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

To all above: I unfortunately do not understand the issue here with respect to the German WP. I recently did some copy editing to eliminate perceived "puffery". After seeing some recent edits, I intend to make another pass through the article. However, I have questioned the justification of this article and favor merging it into Gustl Mollath. Jmar67 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have commented out some recently added text while I edit it. The English is very rough. Jmar67 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed translations and restored text to article. Jmar67 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's try to get this topic covered as well as possible, and without blocks

I started a new section over at Talk:Gustl Mollath#A vision for dealing with this topic and invite the opinions of the editors of this article. Which I expect to be a subset or the same as those of the other article.

I note that there are very trigger happy admins at the German Wikipedia who tend to exert tight control over article content. The situation is not comparable to what we have here. It is not safe to assume that someone who was blocked by the German Wikipedia is going to be disruptive here, and neither is it safe to assume that someone who supposedly wasn't disruptive there won't be blocked here.

Still I advise all editors coming from the German Wikipedia to tread carefully while they are here – unless they really know the local terrain. Hans Adler 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeesh. This article reads as a WP:COATRACK just to include the issue about Mollath into a BLP's page. I'm not sure there's enough here to be worth keeping in its own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

See my comment over at the sister article's talk page. The subject of this article is almost certainly a case of WP:BLP1E. I am not sure yet how we can get all this sorted out with a minimum of disruption. For now I am still trying to find out who the major players are and what they think about my proposal. Since the article is in English and the problem with the accusations is generally one of balance rather than being completely wrong, I feel we have a little more time than I would give this otherwise. Hans Adler 00:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)