Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 1 October 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Sulmues in WP:AE

Sandstein, since you asked me earlier to provide to you a trial version before you consider lifting my AE intervention sanction , I would like to submit the following for user:Alexikoua who was brought to WP:AE recently. Thank you.

In this edit of Alexikoua, he removes comments of a seemingly Albanian user, who is not a confirmed sock: such edit is completely inconsistent with this other edit, where he removes the template "Troll" and wants everyone to see trolling comments of Greek editors, who offend the Albanian nation by saying that the Albanians have no history. With the last edit Alexikoua seems to agree with the troll. I have found the inconsistency of these edits quite tendentious and nationalistic. --Sulmues 13:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

--Sulmues 13:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: You are recycling the 'same' dif. in Sandstein's talkpage: ] and I've answered here ]. Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, I do not think that this proposed comment would be helpful to administrators deciding whether to take enforcement action against Alexikoua, because the comment does not explain how Alexikoua violates any applicable Misplaced Pages conduct rule. Merely agreeing with nationalist trolls or being inconsistent is not prohibited by any policy. You do not make clear how Alexikoua is actually disruptive by making these edits. I believe your proposed comment would only inflame tempers in an area that is not short of easily inflamed tempers. Accordingly, your request to be allowed to make edits to Balkans-related AE threads again is declined. Please make any further appeals to WP:AE or to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sulmues 18:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jillian Hall

Considering nobody had warned them about edit warring before I did, was that a bit hasty? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it stops the warring. Disruption-only single purpose accounts are routinely blocked without warning. I've no objection to an unblock if the user shows that they understand the problem.  Sandstein  19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not holding my breath here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to trouble you again but could you please advise whether this post violates any of my sanctions or might be perceived as violating them. Obviously, if you advise that it does, I will self-revert immediately. Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember what your sanctions are and am not keen to look them up all over the place.  Sandstein  16:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the ones which might be relevant are that I am topic banned from Eastern Europe (although my post makes no mention of EE or any related subject) and that I am not allowed to take part in AE (the ban on participation in any dispute resolution is, I understand, pending). Varsovian (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are topic banned, then I very strongly recommend that you stay far away from the talk pages of editors that you have had disagreements with in that topic area. I'll try to make it as simple as possible: Just. Stay. Away. This will avoid more waste of time and problems for all involved. I am very annoyed to keep seeing the same names on my talk page over and over again for no good reason.  Sandstein  18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for annoying you, that really was not my intention: I was just trying to prevent anybody from using against Loosmark what I considered to be a justified post by him (if I had wanted to annoy him or start yet another round of conflict, I'd have simply taken the matter to AE). Next time I will certainly take your advice and stay well away. Apologies again. Varsovian (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Need advice

Hello. I need your advice again about the disputed article Garegin Njdeh where the edit war happened. I offered Kevorkmail to request third-opinion about our dispute but there is no answer from him for three days. I cannot force him to discuss as he ignores my tries to find consensus. What should I do? --Quantum666 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need the other person's consent for requesting a third opinion. Why don't you try just doing so at WP:3O?  Sandstein  10:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I just thought that mediation process needs two parties' consent. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I placed the request at WP:3O. User:WikiDao agreed to provide third-opinion and invited Kevorkmail to comment his position. As I see he is not going to do it. What should be the next step to resolve the dispute? And I have another problem with the user. Please ask him to avoid such allegations. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You should wait a few days. If the other editor does not comment on your proposal, and the editor who provides the third opinion agrees with your proposal, you have a sufficient basis on which to implement your proposal in the article. As concerns the second issue, you should not reply with "Then as you provide no sources I will remove the text you added", since that is edit-warring, as indeed both of you seem to be at Yerevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  Sandstein  18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For closing the debate on commons Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look please

Hello. Could you please look here. I really don't understand what to do in such case. Should I complain somewhere? --Quantum666 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a very long discussion. What, in a few sentences, is the problem?  Sandstein  19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all I want to say who is User:Quantum666 and what he want here. Not far time ago he was participating in Russian chapter of wikipedia. Here You can find a list of blockes of this user. Some of them are Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry and what he is doning now - Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. In the Russian chapter he was doing the same as here, but when he was blocked for infinity (there was really big case) he relocated his activity to the English chapter of wikipedia. So what he is doing? He have not created any article in English and only make very disruptive edits in the Armenian-related articles. For example he is deleting images , , filling wrong information (there are only some thousands) or just this edit when he filling as a source Tomas de Vaal who in Russian wikipedia is unreliable source, so he has decided to try his luck with it here. Such edits or such edits where he is spoiling article with request of the source everywhere (while in Azerbaijan-related articles he delete such requests ) and such edits where he is changing words that Armenian liberated Armenian village to Armenian captured Armenian village is absurd. More than that. For the short time of participating in the project he has got a lot of conflicts with other users: , , , , , , , . So I'm not sure if I should start here discussion about his new conflict with me. He is full of Anti-Armenianism and 90% of his contributions are anti-Armenian. After the block in ruwiki he replaced his activity to here. He tries to discredit the Armenians, wherever possible. It is not normal in my POV. So I'll ask directly do we need a user who was blocked for his activity in other chapter of wikipedia for the infinity period and continues his activity in other chapter? Thanks for the answer. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions in other Wikipedias do not apply to this one. By your above comments, you are casting aspersions of serious misconduct on Quantum666, without adequate evidence (the diffs you cite seem to reflect mere content disagreements) and in the wrong forum. You do so despite my explicit warning at WP:ANI not to do this (), and are therefore in violation of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting_aspersions. Consequently you are blocked for 48 hours; if you continue to approach disputes in this manner you may be made subject to arbitral sanctions.  Sandstein  06:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly the problem is that Lionking tries to link two problems in the article: presence of Armenian name and choosing the sources to show the population of the region. Lionking agrees that the Armenian name shouldn't be there but continues to revert forcing me to "make compromise" about the second problem. User:Golbez has already told him that such linking is unacceptable a few times but Kevorkmail doesn't hear him too.

P.S. Does the previous comment of Lionking violates WP:PERSONAL. If so I would like to make a request about this. Where should I appeal? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The conduct of Ліонкінг should be addressed with the block imposed above. I cannot help you resolve the content issue; for this see WP:DR. But I can address conduct problems. Both of you have been edit-warring for a month or so on Agdam Rayon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is unacceptable and must stop now. I will block either of you who continues to revert the other on that article. I note that Ліонкінг has been previously sanctioned for edit-warring in this topic area and been given a four month revert restriction. It does not appear to have helped. Accordingly I recommend that you request arbitration enforcement against Ліонкінг to prevent him from continuing to edit-war in this topic area.  Sandstein  06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick help please

A user with no edit history other than this (sock?) keeps erasing completely a big overhaul I made to the article Polish–Ukrainian War, wiping out an hour of work. Here is what he did. Prior to me coming in there was a large section with almost no refs. I expanded - here is what I did. Now I see that User:Loosmark has joined him. Help would be appreciated!Faustian (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "sock" is correct, as far as I can see you have tried to insert the comical claim that the Ukrainian morale was high while the Poles wanted to go home. Classic Faustian, really.  Dr. Loosmark  15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the detailed reference about thyat statement. It comes from a claim by people within the Polish government. So you erase all the info about the diplomatic maneuvers, Romania joining Poland, etc? Every statement I added, that you blanked, came from a reliable source, books published by universities. If you have a problem, discuss the specific points on the discussion page rather than blank everything.Faustian (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's your old tactic to make changes to the article and add statements to sneak your Ukrainian propaganda. You are claiming that patriotic Ukrainians were fighting with high morale, while the Poles wanted to go home because they did not want to fight Ruthenians in Ruthenia. What a joke. Lwow was the most important Polish city and every Pole would fight for it, in fact it was unthinkable for it not be a part of Poland. As for the demographics go check Austro-Hungarian census before spreading more nonsense.  Dr. Loosmark  15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)