Redmoon660

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen, "Sousa Mendes Foundation", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or accounts that are shared. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our Conflict of interest guideline and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I note that you represent the Sousa Mendes Foundation, and have been actively editing the Aristides de Sousa Mendes article. This represents a significant conflict of interest. Please make sure you have read and undersootd the relevant guidelines prior to any further edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that there are some facts of Sousa Mendes life that you seem not be very fond of, such as the fact that Sousa Mendes had a mistress and that he had a baby with his mistress or for instance the track record of incidents and reprimands that Sousa Mendes accumulated along his career. Facts and figures are not supposed to be deleted. I also note that you’ve been populated other editors text with your personal biased view. You have already been alerted to your potential conflict of interest position, namely that you’ve implied to belong to the Sousa Mendes organization. You are kindly asked to follow the Independent Point of View Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Facts and Figures (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Sousa Mendes Foundation! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aristides de Sousa Mendes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Rosenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that there are some facts of Sousa Mendes life that you seem not to be very fond of, such as the fact that Sousa Mendes had a mistress and that he had a baby with his mistress or the track record of incidents and reprimands that Sousa Mendes along his career. Facts and figures are not supposed to be deleted. I also note that you’ve been populated other editors text with your personal biased view. You have already been alerted to your potential conflict of interest position, namely that you’ve implied to belong to the Sousa Mendes organization. You are kindly asked to follow the Independent Point of View Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Facts and Figures (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: "Independent point of view" means using reliable research as the basis for editing--not using self-published slander pieces as the basis for inflammatory edits.

Response to Mr Redmoon, former "Sousa Mendes Foundation" Agree. But please read Jose-Alain Fralon book and you will see almost the exact same text that you are deleting now under the grounds that it is “self-published slander pieces as the basis for inflammatory edits”. Are you consider Fralon’s book slander?

This is what you’ve just deleted.

“While in Bordeaux, Sousa Mendes met and became involved with a French woman, Andrée Cibial, and from this relationship his daughter Marie-Rose was born in November 1940. Sousa Mendes was attracted by Andrée, whose freedom and disregard for the proprieties set her at opposite poles from Angelina, his loyal devoted wife. Pedro Nuno, his son, remembers how one evening his father asked him to go to the cinema with a “lady” – who turned out to be Andrée Cibial. Andrée must have got pregnant around February 1940. The hostilities in the French border started 3 months later in May 1940. For sure for a catholic, devoted father of 14, this pregnancy outside marriage, must have been an additional stress to Sousa Mendes and his family. Andrée Cibial became Sousa Mendes' second wife in 1949, after the death of Angelina.”

"Please stop Censoring facts you don't like"

You have been consistently censoring my contributions, deleting parts of the life of Mr Sousa Mendes. It is obviously that there are some facts you don’t find very appealing. But hiding facts is not in line with Wikipedia policies. In addition to any fact that is added you urge into include your personal view when your view as a member of the Sousa Mendes foundations seems to be biased. Despite the fact that your views are biased none has been deleted so far. I kindly ask you please abstain from exercising censoring especially when the facts included can be verified in reliable sources, as it is the case of Fralon’s book. You are also asked not to include your personal views in between the views of reputed personalities (e.g. Professor Saraiva) just because you don’t agree with such views or statements. If you are to express an opposite view, please do in a separate area, don’t interrupt the description of the view. Thanks for your kind attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Who are you, and why are you intent on defaming Sousa Mendes?

Response : Not at all. Nothing moves me against Sousa Mendes that is unanimously recognized as I kind man who saved a lot of lives. I’ve just been reading the Fralon book on Sousa Mendes and have been updating Wikipedia with what Fralon worte. I’ve also been reading the Sousa Mendes files that are available at the Wallenberg foundation. I’ve found out that the Sousa Mendes story has been somehow hollywodized, which is natural, people love beautiful stories. In one of the movies we see Sousa Mendes at the table in Bordeaux with a lot of children at the table. But then one strats to dig into it and realizes that there were not many children by then. That some of the “children” were already married or in the army. And this is also Ok but is Hollywood. Not the truth. What does not seem right is to build the myth by attacking Portugal, Salazar and the regime like the false story that he was deprived from his salary. There is no need to destroy. Sousa Mendes has its greatness by himself. If any of the things I wrote are not true, Just send me a proof and I will be the first to delete them and to appologize. Portugal and the regime have housed and fed thousand of refugees, under the tremendous pressure of the German army who even sunk Portuguese merchant ships. There is no point in attacking Portugal for more than it is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Where is your evidence that he was not deprived of his salary? Just because Saraiva says it does not make it true.

Response to Redmoon (Sousa Mendes Foundation?):

Among other documents there is a letter from Mr Sousa Mendes to his brother Cesar where he says the following “Pedro Nuno, Maria Adelaide and their children are in financial straits. My salary has been used up paying for their outgoing….” It is quite ungrateful that people like Teixeria de Sampayo who managed that Mr Sousa Mendes to keep is salary full for the rest of his life are now being attacked, because it looks more beautiful in the Hollywood story of Good Sousa Mendes against the evil forces of the Salazar Regime. Please note that while my editing keep on being either deleted or commented without with your undocumented opinions, I have not deleted one single word of what you wrote, even when what you wrote was a personal undocumented view. The research from the Sousa Mendes foundation with the name of the visas is incredibly biased. Pretending that all those people that went to the consulate in Bordeaux until May 1940, during the so called “phony” war period, because there was no war going on, and got their visas, authorized by Lisbon, and paid for it, just like people still do today in any consulate, and just like they were doing in all other consulates….is ridiculous. Insisting on hiding that Mr Sousa Mendes was being unfaithful to his wife is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Who are you? Please give me your name and contact info so that we can continue this offline.

Response:

There is nothing to be continued. The only thing we need to do is make sure we write documented facts. This is an encyclopedia, this is not the Sousa Mendes Foundation web site. It is astonishing how you even censor extracts from Jose Alain-Fralon book or Rui Afonso book! Two recognized worshipers of Mr Sousa Mendes. Once again, if anything I wrote is no true, let me know and I will be the first to delete it. Did you know that Texeira de Sampayo was a friend of Cesar and Aristides? And that because of that Aristides was not prosecuted for passport forgery? And because of that lived with is full salary until the end of his days? But he lived with Andrée in Pasal, spending money without counting it (e.g. he would take a Taxi every day to go to Viseu). And that there are many other proofs that Aristides always received his consul salary? If you want another document….and the letter that he wrote to Cesar is not good enough, you can check the legal action that was brought upon Sousa Mendes by his creditors in 1953. He was then sentenced to pay to his creditors, every month, a % of his salary. I am sorry if this comes as a disappointment to you and the Hollywood story is falling apart. But the truth sometimes surfaces. If you insist on including your biased views I will have to file another complain to the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

One last thing You can find all the documents related with the payments made to MR Sousa Mendes in here. When Mr Sousa Mendes died he war receiving 2,304$60/month http://badigital.sgmf.pt/Arquivo-DGCP--07---005---003/1/DGCP-07-005-003_PDF/DGCP-07-005-003.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: What is this file? And what page should I look at? And... who are you???

Response to Redmoon (former "Sousa Mendes Foundation"):

This is the Sousa Mendes file that you can find online (it is heavy 60MB) in the website of “Ministerio das Financas”. You will find there all documents related with the payments done to Mr Sousa Mendes by the “Ministerio das Financas”. In the first pages you can find records of the payments made to him. You will see that in 1948, Mr. Sousa Mendes was receiving 1,728 Esc. + 260 Esc “de subsídio”. And that in 1949 is was receiving 2,160 Esc.

And then on the 5th page you will find a letter to Andrée Cibial in reply to her request for Money from Sousa Mendes Salary. The letter explains to Andrée Cibial that since Sousa Mendes on April 4 1954. The payment due for that month is 307,20 Esc. But that they have a court order from the 2º “Juizo Civil da Comarca de Lisboa” that orders them to retain 750,60 Esc per month (this court order was related with debts thar Mr Sousa Mendes had). You can cross check this documents with the archive from Juizo Civil da Comarca de Lisboa”

The file is valuable for you and the Sousa Mendes Foundation because it contains all payments made to him since the beginning of his career. And what you can see while he was abroad he was receiving much more money. These still happens today with most diplomats. You could argue that having Mr. Sousa Mendes in Lisbon was penalizing Mr. Sousa Mendes. But on the other hand Mr. Sousa Mendes, because of his big family, had hardly been in Lisbon, he was always abroad and he was allowed to stay in Antwerp for 9 years (something absolutely exceptional). It will be difficult tom make a point that he should have been benefiting from that same kindness, considering that his kids were already grown up. And how could you appoint Sousa Mendes to a new post if he refused to obey orders? and he would only follow his conscience. You can not run thousands of civil servants with freedom of conscience. You can allow them to refuse not to do some tasks because it is against their conscience, but allowing the civil servants just to do what their conscience tells them to do...it is undoable and there is no country today allowing that.

It looks to me that keeping on receiving a full sallary, for 14 years, without having to work can hardly be considered a harsh punishment.

Do you really think that if the hostility towards Sousa Mendes was that great his sons would apply for a diplomatic career?

I am assuming that you will not be disputing this evidence and will be removing a lot of wording that only brings discredit to you, Mr Bessa Lopes and many other people. I will leave just as an undisputed truth. However if you still think that there are other sustainable points of views on this salary issue, we can always go back to a previous version. Let me know your thoughts. Finally. I am not a Salazar’s fan. I cannot many of the things he established. Like “censoring” information. (Something you have been doing over the last days). Last but not least. If you find in what I wrote something that his not true or sustained, please let me know. I will be glad to review it or delete it. Just like I did when you called my attention to the fact that Leite Pinto was only appointed in 1943.

JPratas (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Response. Thank you. Who are you?

Response:

It does not matter who I am. Let us stick to the documents and the facts. Do you still want to dispute the "salary issue"? What shall we do with all the wording pro and against? We could also try to agree on other issues. The text would be more understandable. You've forced me to introduce a lot of evidence that does not make sense. JPratas (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This false statement on the "sallary issue" is already being include it school books to children. It is not fair to tell teatch things that are false JPratas (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion would better be placed at the article's talk page, so that maybe more editors could take a look and help. Would you please continue there? - Nabla (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Thanks for the heads up. You're absolutely right. I've already followed your advice. JPratas (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmoon660, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. JPratas (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

Redmoon660 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize for using multiple accounts, but it was never my intention to violate Wikipedia policy in any way. Furthermore, the user who launched the investigation has stated on the investigation page that he did not intend to have me blocked. Thank you for your consideration. Redmoon660 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Using multiple accounts in the way you have done is not acceptable; the intention of the reporting editor is not relevant. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:55, 23 March 2014 (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.

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).

Redmoon660 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your review. I would like to add that I was presumed to be editing on behalf of an organization but that this is incorrect. I was editing on my own behalf and based on my own knowledge of the literature. I respectfully request that I be given another opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia, and pledge to abide by its guidelines. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

If you really want to be unblocked and do as you say, this request isn't sufficient. You need to divulge all other accounts you have created, even if you haven't used them, even if we don't know about them, and declare which account you will use for all edits from now on. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2014 (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.

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

Redmoon660 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your response. The other accounts are Coimbralove and Beebop211. If allowed, I would like to use Beebop211 from now on. If not allowed, I will use this one (Redmoon660). Thank you for your consideration. Redmoon660 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See the other unblock request below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Before any unblock request can be seriously considered, I think you need to explain why you used multiple accounts in the ways you did, which showed every sign of being intended to be deceptive. For example, it is very difficult to see any legitimate reason for switching from editing a page using one account to editing the same page using another account, and then back to the first one, in the course of five minutes. The fact that you appear to have been editing for the purpose of promoting a point of view, and to remove content inimical to that point of view, is also a cause for concern. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In response to your first question, it was an immature response on my part to another editor also switching between accounts ("JPratas" and "Just Facts and Figures"). That's no excuse, and one should never stoop to another's level. I've learned my lesson! In response to your second question, I have tried at all times to footnote and substantiate every edit and be sure that it is reflective of a preponderance of the literature to the best of my ability and knowledge. That was always my intent and is still my intent. I did remove content that was defamatory, poorly sourced and/or poorly written. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Redmoon660 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to accept that you now acknowledge that the way you used multiple accounts was unacceptable, and that you will not do the same again. The other point, though, is less straightforward. You say that you removed content that was "poorly sourced and/or poorly written". What is "poorly written" is subjective, but looking at the issue of removing "poorly sourced" content, I see places in your editing history where you added whole paragraphs without any sources whatever, which is difficult to reconcile with your removal of other editors' content because you don't think the sources are good enough, often without (as far as I can see) explaining what you think is wrong with those sources. I have also seen examples of your inserting unambiguous expressions of opinion and commentary into an article. However, I have not seen examples of that kind of problematic editing in your most recent edits, so perhaps you have learnt to do better.

Of course, we all believe that our own point of view is the correct one, otherwise we wouldn't hold that point of view, and of course we all tend to see anything that goes against that point of view as wrong. We all tend to perceive faults in sources that we see as supporting a position we regard as false, and fail to see faults in sources supporting a position we regard as true. It is therefore perfectly possible for an editor with strong opinions on a subject to sincerely believe that what he or she is doing is based firmly in objective evidence, while others see his or her editing as based on a point of view, and his or her assessment of the validity of sources as shaped by that point of view. I wonder if that is what is happening in your case. There is no doubt that you do wish to promote a point of view on the subject on which you have edited: you are affiliated to an organisation which declares its own aim to be "to share this history and broadcast it far and wide, because it stands as a moral example". Even though you may have learnt to avoid the blatant expressions of partisan bias that you used to exhibit some months ago, I am still cautious about unblocking an editor who is clearly here to use Wikipedia as part of a campaign to spread and publicise a point of view, which is a purpose contrary to the whole character of Wikipedia. You were informed of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy nearly five months ago. "I am still cautious about unblocking" does not mean "I certainly will not unblock", but I shall consult the blocking administrator and the administrator who declined your previous unblock request to see if either or both of those is willing to consider your position more favourably in the light of what you have now said about your use of multiple accounts. Also, any other administrator who reads this is perfectly free to unblock you if he or she thinks that it is appropriate: by commenting here I am not taking "ownership" of your unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In terms of adding whole paragraphs without any sources, I am not sure what you are referring to. It is possible that there were times when I added text first and went back later to add the sources. I'm sure that if you look at the paragraph(s) in question in the actual article you will find them to be well-sourced. As far as inserting expressions of opinion in the article, could you possibly give an example? I have tried at all times to reflect the preponderance of the literature, and wherever possible to provide direct quotes. Please let me know if there is an example you would like to discuss. Thank you. Redmoon660 (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Also, I am not sure what you mean by my point of view. If you could point to an example of this I would really appreciate it. I do admire the actions of someone who saved the lives of thousands of strangers, but I hardly think that this is a point of view since the person in question has been widely honored in four countries. I am not sure if that is what you are referring to or if you have something else in mind. Thank you and best wishes. Redmoon660 (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you really honestly think that you have not been editing to promote a point of view, then you so completely lack the ability to see the nature of your own actions that it is unlikely that you will ever be able to edit objectively. It is abundantly clear that your purpose is to paint Aristides de Sousa Mendes in a favourable light. The very fact that you have, by your own account, removed content that you think is "defamatory" indicates that you are aware that there are people who hold a different opinion from your own. To suggest that the fact that the person in question "has been widely honored in four countries" somehow makes your point of view not a point of view is absurd. Jesus of Nazareth has been widely honoured in far more than four countries, but that does not detract from the fact that honouring him reflects a point of view.

Before I posted my comments above, I looked extensively at the editing history of your various accounts, and I saw a number of cases of the sorts of things you ask about. I did not keep a record of them all, and I do not intend to spend a lot of time searching yet again among your nearly 2000 edits to find them. However, I will give just a few examples. In this edit you (a) removed a substantial amount of content with a source, without giving any reason, (b) added a substantial amount of content without providing any source whatever, and (c) included your own expressions of editorial opinion, such as saying what you think "one must take into account", and stating that something "is clear" when you know full well that there is disagreement over it. Here you say "Since he is not a researcher, Fernandes is understandably unaware that the figure of three days is erroneous, and he could not be expected to be current on research being conducted in the United States." What is "understandable" and what "could not be expected" are opinions. Here you say "there is no question that..." on an issue on which yu know there is disagreement, which is in fact teh whole reason for mentioning the question. Here you say "However, if Saraiva thinks that the refugees with visas granted by Sousa Mendes were transported in the Wolfram Trains he is wrong" (my emphasis) and "In the context of such denialism it is still a challenge for defenders of Sousa Mendes' memory within Portugal to make their voices heard", both of which are expressions of opinion.

You say that you tried "to reflect the preponderance of the literature", but you fail to mention that an enormous proportion of the references you provided were links to your own organisation's web site. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson. You make a lot of points, and I will answer them one by one.

• Your first remark is that I am interested in painting Aristides de Sousa Mendes in a favorable light. The issue here is whether that involves skewing the reliable literature on the subject. The overwhelming majority of the literature, as well as the entirety of the literature in the English language, paints Sousa Mendes in a favorable light. Shouldn't Wikipedia reflect the thrust of the literature?
• As for defamatory material: I think all you need to do is look at many of the edits of JPratas/"Just Facts and Figures" and you can see for yourself. Look especially at the changes he made under his IP address in October 2013 prior to creating his user name JPratas, and compare the article to what it was before his involvement. Then you will see what the article looked like when I first encountered it. But if you wish for me to provide examples I will do so.
• Your next point concerns the discussion in the literature about the number of visas issued by Sousa Mendes. This discussion was eventually moved out of the introductory section and into the body of the article, where it belonged. All of the reliable literature concurs that Sousa Mendes issued visas to thousands of refugees. There is no disagreement on that point in the mainstream reliable literature. Why do I specify "mainstream reliable literature"? Because unfortunately there is some fringe literature that has appeared in Portugal, some of it self-published, to glorify the former dictator Antonio Salazar. Some of the examples you cite above fall into that category and have nothing to do with scholarly debate.
• One of your examples concerns the question of anti-Semitism in Portugal during the period in question (World War II). JPratas wants the reader to believe that the dictatorship was benign and that the order called "Circular 14" was not anti-Semitic. He created a whole category within the article called "Lack of anti-Semitism in Portugal" in which he misrepresented the writings of the historian Avraham Milgram. When Milgram's article (available online) states that anti-Semitism didn't establish "even a toe-hold" in Portugal he is referring to the populace at large. But Milgram is very clear that the government policy was targeted against Jews. The purpose of my edit that you cite above was to present the complete picture. I should have cited Milgram as my source and should have used more neutral language--you're right.
• Your final point concerns references to pages on the Sousa Mendes Foundation website providing the identities of specific visa recipients. Many of those footnotes also reference published sources such as the biographies of Sousa Mendes by Fralon and Afonso. If there are specific references that are controversial or go against Wikipedia policy please let me know.

I think I have addressed all of your points. Please let me know if I missed anything or if you have further questions or concerns. Many thanks. Redmoon660 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Since writing the above message, I have noticed a couple more points relating to the sockpuppetry issue. I said above that you had switched from one account to another and back within five minutes. I have now noticed another occasion where you did the same within two minutes. More important, though, is what I have noticed relating to the timing of certain events. You replied to my comment about deceptive use of multiple accounts by saying that it was a response to what you regard (very probably correctly) as similar abuse by the accounts JPratas and Just Facts and Figures. However, the rapid switching back and forth between two accounts that I referred to used the two accounts Beebop211 and Coimbralove, and the account Beebop211 was not even created until a few days short of two months after the last time Just Facts and Figures edited. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct about the timing. You asked about motivation, and that's what I was responding to. That's not an excuse and I certainly can't blame anyone else for my own actions, for which I take full responsibility. Redmoon660 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any unblock would likely also need to require severe editing restrictions, such as a topic ban. There seems to be one specific topic area that causes you grief - so much so that you socked to try and get your way - the socking is a symptom, not the cause. It's going to be vital in this situation to remove the cause. ES&L 11:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There does seem to be a long term issue regarding Redmoon660 and Aristides de Sousa Mendes which goes beyond the sockpuppetry, as ES&L said the symptom not the cause. I'd be happy with an unblock which includes a one account restriction as well as a topic ban from Aristides de Sousa Mendes at least at the start. If, after a few months, Redmoon shows that they can constructively and positively edit in other areas we can look at removing the topic ban or replacing it with something less severe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the very first message at the top of this page states in part "remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose". By requesting a username change and continuing to edit Wikipedia, the user accepted that restriction, and also confirmed that they had indeed read and accepted the conflict of interest guidelines that had been presented with them. As the Founder of Wikipedia has said "people with COI should never edit their article(s) directly, they should only proposed sourced changes on the article talkpage" ES&L 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to restate that I have not edited on behalf of any organization and that at all times I based my editing on a preponderance of the literature to the best of my knowledge and ability. This has not been a simple task because of another editor's persistent attempt to insert defamatory edits. If you choose to not allow me to edit the article on Aristides de Sousa Mendes, I suggest that the page be put under some level of protection so that the situation that emerged in October 2013 does not repeat itself. Thank you for your consideration. Redmoon660 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you have not already done so, you may like to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Please keep in mind that I did not create the entry. My purpose at all times was simply to enhance it to the best of my ability and based on my knowledge of the literature. Redmoon660 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC) OK, I have just read the page you directed me to, which concerns whether a topic is notable or not. Sousa Mendes is notable with or without me, and the article predates my involvement by several years. Redmoon660 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As your activity consisted not only of edit-warring and point of view promotion, but also of sockpuppetry to the same ends, I would only be happy with an unblock if a topic ban were to be included. Article protection is not, I think appropriate; full protection restricts editing to admins, which is an over-reaction, and partial protection excludes only IP editors and very recent accounts.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever you decide I'll have to live with, obviously. Is there no possibility of "supervised editing"--a sort of "probation" if you will, but without a topic ban? Otherwise I just hope there's a way to ensure that the article in question doesn't turn back into the smear job it became in late October 2013. Thank you for your time and consideration. Redmoon660 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the consensus above seems to be this:

You may be unblocked, as per your acknowledgements based on WP:GAB, but with 2 editing restrictions:

1. You are limited to one account to edit Wikipedia. Editing anonymously is also not accepted.
2. You are topic-banned from the subject of Aristides de Sousa Mendes.

These restrictions are at this point considered indefinite, but can be appealed to WP:ANI after a period of 6 months. These restrictions will be logged at wP:RESTRICT, and any administrator can reblock if they are violated. Any appeal should show a) significant positive edits in other areas, b) improved knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and c) positive interactions with other editors. Although not a requirement, you would benefit from adoption during this period in order to help the above. If you accept these restrictions, please acknowledge that you acccept them ES&L 18:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Is there no possibility of any sort of "supervised editing"--a "probation" if you will, as I had requested above? Redmoon660 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is really no room for negotiation. you have been presented with a proposal, which you either accept or reject.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any kind of appeal process? And may I select the user name I have primarily used (Beebop211)? Redmoon660 (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the appeals process which is telling you that these are the conditions you'll need to agree to to be unblocked. It might possible in a few months to replace the topic ban with supervised editing however that'll need to be then not now. There shouldn't be a problem with using the User:Beebop211 account as long as you publicly acknowledge (on the userpage of this and that account) that these two accounts are linked and that it is the only account which is unblocked, however as I was the admin who blocked you it's not my decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I accept. Thank you. Redmoon660 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Redmoon660 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi there. We have come to a conclusion, and I am just wondering when the unblock will take effect. Thank you. Redmoon660 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

On the basis of your agreement to the conditions offered above, I am willing to unblock the account Beebop211, but leave the other two accounts blocked. I am also willing to put it on record that, having read everything you have written on this page, I accept that, apart from the issue of sockpuppetry, you were acting in good faith, attempting to counter what you saw as biased editing and dishonest methods. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson, Anthony Bradbury, and DangerousPanda: As I am the blocking admin I don't think it should be me to impose a conditional unblock so would one of you mind unblocking with the conditions and deciding on if Redmoon can use the other account they've asked for and recording at WP:EDR? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)