Revision as of 13:52, 19 June 2013 view sourceRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Blocked← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:03, 19 June 2013 view source Russavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Blocked: removing unblock notice -- popcorn anyone?Next edit → | ||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
Removing unblock notice. Popcorn anyone? | |||
{{unblock}} |
Revision as of 14:03, 19 June 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. |
Youreallycan
Russavia, any chance of you staying off Youreallycan's talk page? He seems keen on staying away from you; perhaps, despite his past misdeeds (the "queer agenda" stuff is pretty abominable, and I said as much during the RfC), you might consider reciprocating...? —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Tom, I'll stay off his talk page; I've said what I've had to say now on his talk page and at the AN/U. Russavia (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Russavia, I don't think I know you, or if I do, I must have forgotten: old age is my blessing. I am supporting Rob's unblock, as you may have seen, and I do that knowing full well what the liabilities are. It is true that he has a temper and all that, I know, but I'm probably no better than him. Anyway, the "queer agenda" thing is bothersome to me, and I reckon I missed that when it happened. I suppose you could supply the diffs, or I could find it, and I can read the whole story and the backstory and its backstory, but even without reading all that I am more than willing to accept that he made a grievous error at that time. FWIW, I'm certainly not arguing that he was blocked and banned unfairly, but I am open to second chances (third, fourth: every new chance is a second chance)--I'd want one for myself if it should ever come to that. I have a very low tolerance for homophobia--no, I have no tolerance for homophobia, I have low tolerance for homophobic remarks and I am more than willing to use my little admin tool to deliver the appropriate response should Rob make such a remark again. I trust that he won't, though I understand completely if you don't have that kind of trust. Excuse my babbling on, but I'm babbling to let you know that I am aware of the burden of saying unblock. Thanks, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies, thanks for your message. I'll be in touch in the next few days; I've got a lot of stuff that is priority at the moment, but will give you backstory on this so that you are aware of the issue, etc. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Rob's request was closed down quickly. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies, thanks for your message. I'll be in touch in the next few days; I've got a lot of stuff that is priority at the moment, but will give you backstory on this so that you are aware of the issue, etc. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Russavia, I don't think I know you, or if I do, I must have forgotten: old age is my blessing. I am supporting Rob's unblock, as you may have seen, and I do that knowing full well what the liabilities are. It is true that he has a temper and all that, I know, but I'm probably no better than him. Anyway, the "queer agenda" thing is bothersome to me, and I reckon I missed that when it happened. I suppose you could supply the diffs, or I could find it, and I can read the whole story and the backstory and its backstory, but even without reading all that I am more than willing to accept that he made a grievous error at that time. FWIW, I'm certainly not arguing that he was blocked and banned unfairly, but I am open to second chances (third, fourth: every new chance is a second chance)--I'd want one for myself if it should ever come to that. I have a very low tolerance for homophobia--no, I have no tolerance for homophobia, I have low tolerance for homophobic remarks and I am more than willing to use my little admin tool to deliver the appropriate response should Rob make such a remark again. I trust that he won't, though I understand completely if you don't have that kind of trust. Excuse my babbling on, but I'm babbling to let you know that I am aware of the burden of saying unblock. Thanks, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Pricasso
Good job on the draft. Been meaning to write something up for a while (but I am immeasurably lazy). Mind if I pitch in? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. At the moment I would prefer that people not edit the draft in my userspace, however I will get it up into mainspace in the next week, so at that time feel free to jump right in. If you have any specific comments/suggestions on the article you'd like to make feel free to drop me a message here. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, FYI, I made this post at Jimbo's talk page with an idea for a way forward. I have asked NYB, who has said that it would be ok for you to comment here on the idea. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Regards, EdChem (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would be embarrassed to go back to an artist who has donated their time and provided free content to this project and to ask them to donate yet more time and free content. And we as a project should be ashamed and embarrassed that this is even an issue. So count me out of that; I am not going to insult a notable artist by insisting that his art is not good enough for us. Russavia (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You're violating 3RR
Moreover, your rollback is futile. Even if the IP user truly belongs to the banned user, even if Jimbo's talk page is semi-protected, I will post the same question on my own behalf. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't give a fuck if I am violating 3RR -- these trolls (sorry WTT, but that's what they are) should not be posting. But anyway Sameboat, pose the question, and at the same time you might want to stop talking shit about myself and other editors. Russavia (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Special BLP enforcement restriction
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Am closing further discussion off here, because I've said what I had to say, and I don't see any apologies or retractions coming my way -- this is the norm on English Misplaced Pages (the most broken of all our projects!) Russavia (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noted with concern your recent edits relating to Jimmy Wales, which you have continued to make despite being advised that they are inappropriate and are inconsistent with our policy concerning material about living persons. That Jimmy Wales was a founder of Misplaced Pages does not entitle him to special treatment under the BLP policy, but it does not disqualify him from consideration and decent treatment under that policy either. Read in context of the relevant discussions and of your personal disputes with Jimmy Wales, I have little difficulty in concluding that your conduct is outrageous.
Pursuant to the administrator instructions for special enforcement of the BLP policy, you are hereby indefinitely topic-banned and prohibited from making any edit relating directly or indirectly to Jimmy Wales.
This action is taken in my capacity as an individual administrator. Under the policy, you have the right to appeal the action either to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee. Needless to say, if you appeal to the Committee, I will recuse myself from the discussion. However, although as noted you have the right to make such an appeal, I strongly counsel you not to do so, as this would only compound the effect of the disruption that you have already caused.
I urge the administrators and community on other affected Misplaced Pages projects to consider taking parallel actions regarding this situation.
This restriction prohibits edits concerning Jimmy Wales as a public figure, as well as posting or discussion of images related to him. The restriction does not prohibit your commenting in a civil fashion in userspace or Misplaced Pages space on actions that Jimmy Wales may take in his capacities on Misplaced Pages.
This restriction is without prejudice to any action that any other administrator may take relating to any other conduct you may have engaged in or may engage in in the future. In light of your extensive prior history of problematic editing, I strongly urge you to steer away from unnecessarily creating controversies if you wish to retain your editing privileges on this project.
Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I ask the question again, but this time to you, what disputes with Jimmy? Seeing as you've perused those disputes, can you please clarify which disputes you talk about? Russavia (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, in the interest of Arbcom member transparency, can you please advise whether this has come about as a result of a request by Jimmy himself? Russavia (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- In response to your first question, it is well-known that you have had disagreements with Jimmy Wales concerning his views and actions relating to Commons. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you have been pressing to include, on English Misplaced Pages and another project, a video that you know Jimmy Wales intently dislikes, in retaliation for his disagreements with you. At a minimum, your behavior leads to the reasonable perception that this is the case, which implicates the recent amendments to the BLP policy, made in light of the Qworty episode and consistent with prior ArbCom decisions, that editors must not post biographical or similar material about an individual motivated by personal disputes with that individual.
- In response to your second question, no. The Committee has had no communication from Jimmy Wales concerning this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please point to the disagreements relating to his actions on Commons? Russavia (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, please unprotect User:Russavia/Pricasso -- there is no need now for this to have continued protection. Russavia (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding your first question, I would describe your disagreements with Jimbo Wales as common knowledge, and I find your question to be disingenuous. Regarding your second question, please make this request in the first instance to the administrator who protected the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if these disagreements are common knowledge, then perhaps you can fill our readers in on what those disagreements are. Russavia (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Same answer as above. If there is anyone who is both interested in the answer and unaware of it, he or she can type "Russavia Jimbo Wales" into the Commons search engine and explore the plethora of results. If you are seriously going to deny that you have had longstanding disagreements with Jimmy Wales about various issues on Commons then you are playing games. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so you want me to do your work for you NYB? You stated that you applied this topic ban (which I really don't care about of course) in the context of disagreements I've had with Jimmy on Commons, and that these are Common knowledge, but then you want me to pluck those disagreements out of 101 results of "Russavia wales" in Commons and User space. Can you point specifically to these disagreements; especially those in which I have been "vicious" (using Jimmy's words). Russavia (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- NYB, if I understand you correctly, any editor who edits about anyone on Misplaced Pages he's ever disagreed with can be hit with a sudden and hard to appeal topic ban. Does this include contributors to, say, List of Misplaced Pages controversies, many and quite probably most of whom are editing about things they've had some direct involvement in? I understand we don't want COI-motivated revenge editing but Russavia's whole involvement with Jimbo in this article was one figure of a portrait with legend. And I still don't understand why people don't find it perfectly reasonable that Pricasso, when choosing someone to contribute a painting about to Commons, wouldn't have picked the founder of the project of his own volition, simply because it seems like the obvious choice? It seems like either this topic ban is an aberration or you are going to be issuing a whole lot of notices like this. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Every situation is individual and must be assessed on its own merits. I think the desirability of separating Russavia from editing about Jimmy Wales at this point speaks for itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- NYB, if I understand you correctly, any editor who edits about anyone on Misplaced Pages he's ever disagreed with can be hit with a sudden and hard to appeal topic ban. Does this include contributors to, say, List of Misplaced Pages controversies, many and quite probably most of whom are editing about things they've had some direct involvement in? I understand we don't want COI-motivated revenge editing but Russavia's whole involvement with Jimbo in this article was one figure of a portrait with legend. And I still don't understand why people don't find it perfectly reasonable that Pricasso, when choosing someone to contribute a painting about to Commons, wouldn't have picked the founder of the project of his own volition, simply because it seems like the obvious choice? It seems like either this topic ban is an aberration or you are going to be issuing a whole lot of notices like this. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so you want me to do your work for you NYB? You stated that you applied this topic ban (which I really don't care about of course) in the context of disagreements I've had with Jimmy on Commons, and that these are Common knowledge, but then you want me to pluck those disagreements out of 101 results of "Russavia wales" in Commons and User space. Can you point specifically to these disagreements; especially those in which I have been "vicious" (using Jimmy's words). Russavia (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Same answer as above. If there is anyone who is both interested in the answer and unaware of it, he or she can type "Russavia Jimbo Wales" into the Commons search engine and explore the plethora of results. If you are seriously going to deny that you have had longstanding disagreements with Jimmy Wales about various issues on Commons then you are playing games. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if these disagreements are common knowledge, then perhaps you can fill our readers in on what those disagreements are. Russavia (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding your first question, I would describe your disagreements with Jimbo Wales as common knowledge, and I find your question to be disingenuous. Regarding your second question, please make this request in the first instance to the administrator who protected the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, please unprotect User:Russavia/Pricasso -- there is no need now for this to have continued protection. Russavia (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind NYB, the search above does shows us Commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive/2013/1 as the first result, and this is basically my ONLY interaction with Jimmy on Commons. Commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive/2013/3#File:Paul_Myners.jpg_and_File:JCA3_edited-1.jpg and Commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive/2013/3#.22Ample_evidence.E2.80.A6.22 are the follow ups by others to that thread. If one reads it in its entireity, they can see that it was actually Jimmy who was vicious towards myself and others on Commons; all because I refused to turn a blind eye to a potential copyright violation that he uploaded. I was cordial with him, offered him a helping hand to complete Commons:COM:OTRS, and all we got in return from Jimmy was his passive aggressiveness. I said it then, and I say it again, not cool Jimmy, not cool.
So there we have it people, this is my previous viciousness with Jimmy.
I won't mention the time that I defended Jimmy from an onslaught of trolls on Quora at the time of the Kazakh Misplaced Pages/Tony Blair trolling; a defence which he went out of his way in agreeing with me on.
Yep, Russavia is one vicious son-of-a-bitch. Russavia (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll say, did you hear what he called his mother? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that it's very difficult to have arguments with someone on a project they don't visit. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I lied. There is another interaction with Jimmy on Commons. After this discussion, I welcomed Jimmy back to Commons, and granted him the file mover right to enable him to move files on Commons. I also encouraged Jimmy to pitch in with efforts on Commons, and again extended to him an offer of any help we can offer to him if he hits snags on Commons, given that he isn't really active there. Of course, and again, this is total viciousness on my part. Oh, and there is this request for Jimmy to comment on an issue. Again, a totally vicious interaction on my part.
Tied in with Jimmy's unacceptable (and potentially libellous) accusations of sexual harassment on my part, are we beginning to see who is being vicious, and in the process totally vindictive. NYB, given that your "evidence" does not hold up to scrutiny, I can only suggest that you distance yourself from this episode, and you can start by apologising to me for backing up Jimmy's outrageous and patently false comments about myself, for your personal attacks on myself above, and for using your "admin authority" to protect another "editor" who has basically lied to the community in accusing me of "viciousness" towards himself. I also expect him to take note of this, and to consider that he will only end up embarrassing himself further if he continues to lash out wildly against me., because I will continue to point out how he is wrong, wrong, wrong. Russavia (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Interesting articles
I'll be adding here a list of interesting articles. Feel free to comment on them as you see fit.
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Removing unblock notice. Popcorn anyone?