| Revision as of 10:19, 29 March 2013 view sourceRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Good advice: what do you think Giano?← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:24, 29 March 2013 view source Giano (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users20,173 edits →Good adviceNext edit → | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| ::::Unfortunately, that's the case Giano. Yes, I was the victim of the EEML. Do you think the EEML is still in operation? Would you like to ask the EEML editors the simple question if the EEML is still in operation? If so, who is a member? And if not, when did it disband? They want to put the EEML days behind them on this project, and if it is no longer in operation, then the community, myself included, would be happy to do so. Then if required, the behaviour of individual editors can be looked at without tarring all editors with a brush which is no longer valid. In relation to Sandstein's problems, unfortunately, ultimately this is now of his own doing. ] (]) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | ::::Unfortunately, that's the case Giano. Yes, I was the victim of the EEML. Do you think the EEML is still in operation? Would you like to ask the EEML editors the simple question if the EEML is still in operation? If so, who is a member? And if not, when did it disband? They want to put the EEML days behind them on this project, and if it is no longer in operation, then the community, myself included, would be happy to do so. Then if required, the behaviour of individual editors can be looked at without tarring all editors with a brush which is no longer valid. In relation to Sandstein's problems, unfortunately, ultimately this is now of his own doing. ] (]) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Of course it's still in operation - no point asking, only a fool (or the Arbcom) would believe them even if they answered. They should never have been allowed back, under any name, form or IP. They were a disgrace. You really ought to post a link to the Arcom case about it prominently here because many of the admins and editors currently opining were not here when that all happened. You forget that Misplaced Pages has the memory span of gnat. <small><span style="border:1px solid red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | == A kitten for you! == | ||
Revision as of 10:24, 29 March 2013
| Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message, alternatively you are welcome to email me. If you leave a message here for me and it requires a reply, I will reply here, so you may want to add my talk page to your watchlist. All users have my permission to remove any bot messages from my talk page at any time. |
|---|
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut)
hia
hey, I was curious if you "agreed" with the idea or the post above yours? User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contributors_banned_over_conduct 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
March 2013
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your Eastern Europe topic ban recently affirmed by the Arbitration Committee, as described in the results section of the enforcement request brought by you,
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Get ready to go to Arbcom Sandstein. Better have all your evidence ready, I've got mine almost done. I've shown numerous people User_talk:Sandstein#Please_cease_all_activities_on_the_Volunteer_Marek_AE_report and their comments is that you have really shown what a power hungry twit and bully you are. You are WRONG in your decision to nullify Arbcom sanctions and decide that they don't apply any more. Might I suggest that you plan for a life on this project without the admin tools, for you have just in plain sight misused your tools, and I will be seeing to it that are stripped from you in the most public way possible. Russavia (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am hereby placing a link to a copy of the text of my appeal to Arbcom for all and sundry to read. Commons:User:Russavia/Appeal -- that I waited for almost 8 months in the hope that someone would do the right thing is a disgrace to this community. You better get well acquainted with everything in that appeal Sandstein, because that appeal as well as your abuse of the tools just now is not going to end well for you. I begged for you to wait, but you like a hardarse ignored everything I had to say. In the end Arbcom were told straight that my block and topic ban last year was a disgraceful action, and how the community was deceived and lied to by numerous people (their day will come at Arbcom too, trust me on that). I have spent the last year all but blocked over an issue that was manufactured and overblown by people with a reason to lie. That year will not be in vain. Let's see if the next two weeks is a mini-repeat of last year -- is there an admin out there who has the balls to undo this clear abuse of our processes, but also the authority of admins to declare null and void Arbcom sanctions. Let's see shall we. Someone needs to finally take a stand, and do the right fucking thing on this project! Russavia (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Also Sandstein, I hope you can explain how you came to reach the decision you did on whether the interaction bans were valid or not, because when one looks at it logically one can see that you have acted in defiance of your authority as an admin. But when one looks at what you did behind the scenes in conjunction with a certain editor at WP:IBAN is just the cherry on top of the icecream. During the AE report that editor adds this to the policy. You then amend it -- the edit summary of your edit is quite amusing considering the conclusion you reached at AE. That editor then posts Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Clarification_in_the_interaction_between_site_and_interaction_ban and he hopes "it is non-controversial?" Oh no, of course not, it is entirely uncontroversial to go and amend POLICY in the middle of an AE enforcement to ensure that a fellow EEMLer is let off without sanction. If this has happened once, chances are it's happened before right? It would indeed be interesting have a look at the previous appearances of Volunteer Marek at AE, and see if he got off without sanction as a result of deceptive shit going on in the background. I know of one occasion it did; on that occasion Piotrus went running to Newyorkbrad and wikilawyered his EMML buddy out of yet another block. It is for that reason, upon seeing that occur, and my block being left intact, that I sent Arbcom a number of emails to ask them what the fuck they were doing. Would anyone like to have a look at other instance, and see if that held true, and who the AE closing admin was. I know the AE from last year didn't see any possibility of Piotrus getting VM out of the shit; but instead, several days into VM's massive two week block (don't worry VM, it will be an indefinite block for you soon enough), Piotrus goes and awards VM a purple heart barnstar; the purple heart of course being awarded to those injured in battle; what a nice fitting tribute to the battleground that is Volunteer Marek's talk page -- it's still displayed there. Perhaps a Polish speaker can tell us what it means?
Sandstein, you should start doing the right thing right about now! Unblock and hand in your tools voluntarily, because if you don't I am going to be insisting that along with desysop you are banished from this project entirely...for good. You foolish, foolish person. Russavia (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction: Interaction ban
The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):
You are indefinitely banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), as described in Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Interaction ban. For additional clarity, this interaction ban includes (but is not limited to) forbidding you from alleging that Volunteer Marek engaged in misconduct outside the English Misplaced Pages.
You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in the results section of this arbitration enforcement request..
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 07:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You fool, see Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted is a still active Arbcom sanction, that you have again overstepped your authority as an admin in nullifying. Please show me where in your admin guide it gives you the authority to declare null and void an active Arbcom sanction. Foolish mate, real foolish. Russavia (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions may legitimately override an older committee sanction. I regret to inform you that this sanction is therefore procedurally sound. AGK 11:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- So here we are, an arb, saying that an admin is able to nullify at their own discretion any in force Arbitration sanction. So can you please explain to me why, you as an Arb, wasted my time asking me for my input at this amendment request, and 9 Arbs in total voted for the limited amendment only between me and Nug, and 2 opposed it. Not a single one of you stated on the record that the interaction ban was apparently no longer valid, as was declared by Sandstein. But now, all of a sudden, Piotrus "uncontroversially" adds to WP:IBAN a most controversial sentence to our policy, which is automatically seized upon by Sandstein to unilaterally declare that Arbcom sanction null and void. Sorry AGK, that is rubbish. Can you please give other examples on this project where an admin has been given carte blanch authority to null and void an Arbcom sanction. Can you also please explain why you stated that the report had to be taken to AE, instead to Arbcom when I enquired about it on T. Canens talk page. Why didn't you state then, for the record, that the sanctions were no longer valid? I expect the answers to these questions in a timely fashion. Russavia (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend that you carefully reread that sentence added to WP:IBAN, as it appears to say the opposite of what you seem to think it says. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, I normally do not respond to questions asked in that tone. But since you seem to be genuinely confused about this, let me explain: I consider (as others did) that it is unclear whether Volunteer Marek's arbitral interaction ban still applies. The remedy specifies that "editors sanctioned by name" in the decision are interaction-banned. But since Volunteer Marek's sanction in that decision was later rescinded, it is not clear whether he is still an "editor sanctioned by name" and therefore subject to the topic ban. The same ambiguity applies to your own arbitral interaction ban, which refers to "editors from the EEML case", because it is not clear whether Volunteer Marek is still an "editor from" that case, whatever that may mean. In view of this ambiguity, I consider that these interaction bans are not clear enough to be enforced. That's why I imposed a new a discretionary sanctions interaction ban. This does not void the arbitral interaction ban, but rather reaffirms and renews it. Additionally, if another administrator is (unlike me) of the view that the arbitral ban is clear enough to be enforceable, then they can still enforce it. My action therefore in no way voids the arbitral remedy (it can't; I have no authority to do that.) I leave it to arbitrators who may read this to determine whether the original remedies may need wording adjustments in the view of these concerns.
I also note that your recent posts to this page appear to violate your interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, but considering that these posts were made in the context of criticizing my actions, I leave it to other administrators to determine what, if any, enforcement action may be needed with respect to these posts. (This is not to be construed as a recusal concerning administrative actions in reaction to any future edits by you.) Sandstein 13:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Russavia, I normally do not respond to questions asked in that tone." If that is the case, it may be better if you ceased appointing yourself the Misplaced Pages Chief of Police. I rather think that you will find that dealing with angry people rather goes with the job. Giano 17:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know how to read, and I know precisely what is says. You see English is my first language. "A ban from interacting with an editor remains in effect if the editor is later blocked or sitebanned, unless the interaction ban is explicitly lifted." The amendment by Sandstein of Piotrus' addition does not negate the fact that the arbcom enacted interaction bans are still valid. Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted and Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted are still active Arbcom sanctions. Except there have been two amendments. The first was one allowing interactions between myself and User:Estlandia. And oddly, a one-way interaction ban allowing Nug to interact with me (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Editors_restricted) -- but an amendment was never considered for Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted. That Piotrus decided to sneak that in during an active AE, but failed to mention it in the AE itself, shows a level of deceptiveness on his part, especially with his snide "uncontroversial" remark. that we should not be rewarding or encouraging. Please show me precisely where this interaction ban was explicitly lifted by Arbcom, as it pertains to myself and/or Volunteer Marek. Russavia (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, I normally do not respond to questions asked in that tone. But since you seem to be genuinely confused about this, let me explain: I consider (as others did) that it is unclear whether Volunteer Marek's arbitral interaction ban still applies. The remedy specifies that "editors sanctioned by name" in the decision are interaction-banned. But since Volunteer Marek's sanction in that decision was later rescinded, it is not clear whether he is still an "editor sanctioned by name" and therefore subject to the topic ban. The same ambiguity applies to your own arbitral interaction ban, which refers to "editors from the EEML case", because it is not clear whether Volunteer Marek is still an "editor from" that case, whatever that may mean. In view of this ambiguity, I consider that these interaction bans are not clear enough to be enforced. That's why I imposed a new a discretionary sanctions interaction ban. This does not void the arbitral interaction ban, but rather reaffirms and renews it. Additionally, if another administrator is (unlike me) of the view that the arbitral ban is clear enough to be enforceable, then they can still enforce it. My action therefore in no way voids the arbitral remedy (it can't; I have no authority to do that.) I leave it to arbitrators who may read this to determine whether the original remedies may need wording adjustments in the view of these concerns.
- I recommend that you carefully reread that sentence added to WP:IBAN, as it appears to say the opposite of what you seem to think it says. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- So here we are, an arb, saying that an admin is able to nullify at their own discretion any in force Arbitration sanction. So can you please explain to me why, you as an Arb, wasted my time asking me for my input at this amendment request, and 9 Arbs in total voted for the limited amendment only between me and Nug, and 2 opposed it. Not a single one of you stated on the record that the interaction ban was apparently no longer valid, as was declared by Sandstein. But now, all of a sudden, Piotrus "uncontroversially" adds to WP:IBAN a most controversial sentence to our policy, which is automatically seized upon by Sandstein to unilaterally declare that Arbcom sanction null and void. Sorry AGK, that is rubbish. Can you please give other examples on this project where an admin has been given carte blanch authority to null and void an Arbcom sanction. Can you also please explain why you stated that the report had to be taken to AE, instead to Arbcom when I enquired about it on T. Canens talk page. Why didn't you state then, for the record, that the sanctions were no longer valid? I expect the answers to these questions in a timely fashion. Russavia (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please alert Giano
Could someone please alert User_talk:Giano to the above actions and my comments, and please ask him to come here to, if he wouldn't mind, discuss this with me. He is well versed in numerous aspects of this history relating to myself, and I am sure that he will be especially interested to see how the soon-to-be-ex-admin Sandstein responds. He might have used his admin tools to bully me, but let's see anyone try a thing with someone the likes of Giano around here. I will bring him up to speed, quite openly, on what an absolute disgrace this place is. Numerous people need to start saying their goodbyes to this project for good. I will be seeing to it. Russavia (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Never fear, I am here; now WTF is going on? Giano 17:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban violation
Hi Russavia. I appreciate your caution in self-reverting your Croatia-related edit as a possible violation of your Eastern Europe topic ban, and in disclosing this at a recent Arbitration Enforcement discussion involving you. I didn't imagine that this edit would lead to a block, though as it has, I should probably point out an earlier edit of yours which could also be construed as violating the topic ban: in this edit you post an image and caption concerning the Moscow Metro. Unlike the Croatia one you did not immediately revert it, so I'm assuming that this was an oversight on your part. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention. In my zeal to do what is best for this project, I simply copied what in my Commons userspace and pasted it here. I, of course, instantly realised that the Russian aviation photos would be topic ban violation material, but there's obviously a few I have missed. I have just looked at the page, and after reading my appeal to Arbcom (the email from 22 February) I have just noticed that User:Russavia/Agenda#Politicians is made almost entirely of Latvian politicians, User:Russavia/Agenda#Ships is an Estonian ship, User:Russavia/Agenda#Sports has a couple of photos too which technically shouldn't be there. Unfortunately at this stage, as you can see I have just been bullied and railroaded by Sandstein with a 2 week block, so I am not able to do anything about them at the moment. When someone has the balls to unblock me (which I am not going to hold my breathe for) or until the block expires, I will be certain to remove them. Or, if you like, if you are in helpful mood, you might like to place those in relevant articles for me, and remove them from that page? Would appreciate that, as would our readers I suspect. Russavia (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was also thinking of your edits to Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 March 25#File:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company logo.jpg. I'm not sure if you noticed the country of the logo when you commented there. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Use of OS by Alison
Apologies Alison, my screen resolution was all screwed up for unknown resolution and I read Mr. Stradivarius as Malick78 in scrolling. But let's start again. This shows that User:Alison oversighted 16 consecutive edits at the AE starting with a post by Mr. Stradivarius in which he noted that he wasn't getting involved, but was wondering why it took him a while to see who was being discussed. He then realised that User:Radeksz is User:Volunteer Marek, and he enquired as to why it wasn't noted at WP:EEML.
It has been oversighted as "defamation"/"personal information issues"/"borderline personal information".
Alison can you please come here and explain why this fact was oversighted. I know that at least one other OS'er objected to the OS, so I really have to question why OS has been used by yourself in this case. It might be seen as somewhat inappropriate given a couple of things. Firstly, you and Marek are members of the same trolling website (you are even a moderator there) and hiding the fact that Radeksz is Volunteer Marek is Radeksz leaves one with more answers than questions. In fact, one has to wonder where there was any defamation in what was posted at all.
Just curious as to why those edits were oversighted above objections from another OS, and when it doesn't seem above board? Russavia (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- If there is something that I missing here, it needs to be explained, because the last thing we need is for evidence at the Arbcom to be oversighted and taken out of public view. This really needs to be explained. Russavia (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is all wrong. Alison has not suppressed the edits; if she had, her suppressions would show up in the private Special:Log/suppress and not the public Special:Log/delete. This is a case of Revision Deletion, which is a permission any administrator can use. AGK 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK revdel. Why has she hidden the fact that User:Radeksz is Volunteer Marek? This she still needs to answer. Russavia (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because it is WP:OUTING. I have removed your violations of this and will ask Alison to revdel them. I also notified the admin who imposed the IBAN sanction on you that you have violated it at least twice since it was imposed. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kindly remove yourself from my talk page right now and don't come back, and don't be so fucking stupid. User:Radeksz goes to User:Volunteer Marek anyway, and the fact is Alison is claiming because it is EEML related -- so fucking what. The fact that there might be a new EEML case in the near future, and this is obviously a tactic being employed by Alison to stop any possible evidence from being offered in the open. At the moment, it is so fricking flimsy in excuse, and has no support at all amongst OS'ers that the link will remain here for now. Do not touch it at all, until Alison can come here and explain herself.
- Because it is WP:OUTING. I have removed your violations of this and will ask Alison to revdel them. I also notified the admin who imposed the IBAN sanction on you that you have violated it at least twice since it was imposed. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK revdel. Why has she hidden the fact that User:Radeksz is Volunteer Marek? This she still needs to answer. Russavia (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is all wrong. Alison has not suppressed the edits; if she had, her suppressions would show up in the private Special:Log/suppress and not the public Special:Log/delete. This is a case of Revision Deletion, which is a permission any administrator can use. AGK 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whilst she is here, she can explain to the good folk, why she is doing this for Volunteer Marek, yet she stood by and did nothing on the harassment site about the outting of me. In fact, she cried wolf which lead to it. Alison, you may be able to get away with such shit on the harassment site, but on this site, you are clearly abusing your tools, so would you kindly stop it. Russavia (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hush! Calling out Alison will do you know good. If she fell face down in a goat hovel, she would jump up smelling of roses with a hundred admins begging to smell her. Your current anger is justified, but calm down and concentrate on who has wronged you - too wide a target and you will miss the bull's eye. Giano 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know mate. Nothing more needs to be said on this here. This is simply a shot across her bow not to try to pull such stunts again. People will now be watching her moves closely I would hope. If it needs to be dealt with later, it can be. Let's consider this section closed. I'll archive it thought for reference. Thanks G, Russavia (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- G, et al, can you please place User_talk:Russavia/Archive_22#Bitchipedia on your watchlist. This needs to be protected against any possible rogue admin/sysop action. A link to this and all info related to it was sent through to Arbcom, and the usual occurred -- "We're looking into it" (says Kirill Lokshin) and then you hear nothing. It was not long after this that I received the email from Marek stating that he was trying to get me banned. Russavia (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hush! Calling out Alison will do you know good. If she fell face down in a goat hovel, she would jump up smelling of roses with a hundred admins begging to smell her. Your current anger is justified, but calm down and concentrate on who has wronged you - too wide a target and you will miss the bull's eye. Giano 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whilst she is here, she can explain to the good folk, why she is doing this for Volunteer Marek, yet she stood by and did nothing on the harassment site about the outting of me. In fact, she cried wolf which lead to it. Alison, you may be able to get away with such shit on the harassment site, but on this site, you are clearly abusing your tools, so would you kindly stop it. Russavia (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Good advice
Hi Russavia! Cool down, please. Go for a walk, do some gardening, drink a cup of tea or whatever to put your mind on something else. Do not edit (respect your block) and do not think about Misplaced Pages and wikipedians. Leave it as it is. Forgive and forget. Life is not always fair, so accept it. Look around at birds and the bees and soon you will discover that life is so much more than Misplaced Pages. Have a break from editing here. You are still wanted at Commons and your deeds there are appreciated. Do what you are good at: uploading valuable images, illustrating articles, improving existing illustrations in the articles and helping new editors to make contributions at Commons. Passing time is the best medicine and cure all wounds. --Seleucidis (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I second this advice. I've been blocked too twice when I clearly was right in the matter, but broke formal rules. Well, what can I do. Hope you'll return once two weeks are gone. Take a break in the meantime, they might have just as well blocked you for another year (or two years), but it was 2 weeks this time. See ya! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks guys, believe it or not I am actually cool...very cool. I am however very disgusted in the way that Sandstein acted, and is still acting, in relation to this mess and the community is allowing him to get away with it. I will keep editing of course, and I will not be letting the trolls (even the admin ones) get to me. If I do, then I lose, we all lose, and this project is too important for it (or at least it used to be...prove me wrong) Russavia (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I rather think Sandstein has allowed himself to be swayed by anons and other disreputables, and clearly has forgotten that you were very much the innocent victim in the Eastern European Mailing List scandal - and it was a true scandal and a very badly handled scandal. I'm afraid the person most damaged by this latest salvo from that quarter is Sandstein - not you. Sooner or later (trust me on this), the community will tire of Sandstein strutting around the site and imposing these Draconian blocks. All through history (in real life and Misplaced Pages) people like him always come to very unpleasant ends, but until that happy day - the likes of you, will just have to sit your blocks out and wait for the sheep to baaah in a different direction - and I promise you that before long that is exactly what they will do. Giano 09:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that's the case Giano. Yes, I was the victim of the EEML. Do you think the EEML is still in operation? Would you like to ask the EEML editors the simple question if the EEML is still in operation? If so, who is a member? And if not, when did it disband? They want to put the EEML days behind them on this project, and if it is no longer in operation, then the community, myself included, would be happy to do so. Then if required, the behaviour of individual editors can be looked at without tarring all editors with a brush which is no longer valid. In relation to Sandstein's problems, unfortunately, ultimately this is now of his own doing. Russavia (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it's still in operation - no point asking, only a fool (or the Arbcom) would believe them even if they answered. They should never have been allowed back, under any name, form or IP. They were a disgrace. You really ought to post a link to the Arcom case about it prominently here because many of the admins and editors currently opining were not here when that all happened. You forget that Misplaced Pages has the memory span of gnat. Giano 10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that's the case Giano. Yes, I was the victim of the EEML. Do you think the EEML is still in operation? Would you like to ask the EEML editors the simple question if the EEML is still in operation? If so, who is a member? And if not, when did it disband? They want to put the EEML days behind them on this project, and if it is no longer in operation, then the community, myself included, would be happy to do so. Then if required, the behaviour of individual editors can be looked at without tarring all editors with a brush which is no longer valid. In relation to Sandstein's problems, unfortunately, ultimately this is now of his own doing. Russavia (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
He will keep you company while you are editing at Commons and will cry each time you are quarrelling . Take good care of this kitten.