Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lvivske (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 9 February 2013 (→Consensus, indeed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Block and Final warning

I warned this account months ago for inappropriate conduct on articles with regard to edits (and edit summaries) about race and ethnicity. It seems that this account has returned to that behaviour. This is the final warning you will receive for edits incompatible with wikipedia's core principles, core policies and codes for behaviour. It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect.
Your action in revert warring on two articles about this (diffs show original edit and reverts), although not making more than 3 reverts this action (across 2 articles) does constitute a breach of WP:EDITWAR, due to repeated reverts without discussion and the spill over from one article to another (something an account with your history of edit-warring should be aware is inappropriate by now) - this has resulted in a 72 hour block. For clarity WP:3RR does not give an automatic right to 3 reverts per day on articles.
Previously I had to warn you that a person being black and English is absolutely possible - it is your problem if you haven't got that message. The fact that you are now edit-warring over your apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible is pointy, incorrect, and contrary to the core policies of this site (source based, neutral point of view edits). You should be in no doubt User:Lvivske that further behaviour like this will be prevented by block if necessary.
Over the course of years you have been counseled and notified about your improper conduct on this site - most recently by me - the behaviour of this account since indicates that you are either not learning, or are ignoring these warnings, and are continuing to use wikipedia as a battleground. This sort of behaviour is forbidden on site and is explicitly listed as grounds for imposing sanction at both the Eastern European disputes RfAr and the Digwuren RfAr.
This message is both an official notification of these Arbitration findings in light of this account's edit warring about ethnicity and nationality on an article (Ukrainian Americans) and a related BLP (Mila Kunis) and a final warning generally for edits, comments and other actions on this site, about race and ethnicity, (actions that either constitute POV editing, use of wikipedia to further off site/real world disputes, or push a POV) that are fundamentally at variance from the stated aims, goals and purpose of this project as an encyclopedia will result in this account loosing its editting privelages--Cailil 13:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Your view on the ethnic English / black position is that of your own POV and not necessarily fact by any sense of the word. That is your own personal belief and you should, as a person of authority here on Misplaced Pages, not allow your own personal views into edit wars or content resolution. 2) The link you provided to a book about Mila Kunis proves nothing, and shows nothing relevant to the discussion at hand. It's just a book cover with no page number, quote, or anything. As I stated previously, she's an ethnically Jewish person from the Soviet Union who is now an American citizen. How is she Ukrainian, ethnic or otherwise? This is just WP:OR on your own part; inferring that temporary residence in the Ukrainian SSR makes one an ethnic Ukrainian, and somehow qualified to headline a diaspora article she does not identify with. 3) The so called "edit warring" you are citing was hardly edit warring, as I have primary sources to back up the reason for my edit regarding Tkachuk, and I was also engaged in communicating the edits with 2 people so far. This is not edit warring. 4) Are you seriously citing arbitrary filings against me that resulted in no action because I was innocent, as some sort of proof against my general behavior or conduct? 5) IS THIS CONCLUSION OF YOURS SERIOUSLY BASED ON YULIA'S FABRICATED QUOTE OF "People who are Jews are never Ukrainian" FROM THE TALK PAGE? If so, then wow. I asked for a source and she warped it into that tripe.

Know the situation before handing out discipline for what was clearly a good faith series of edits. I suggest you follow up on disputes a with a little more attention to detail than you did with this one because if this is a reflection of "findings" then I fear for safety of others' accounts who actually push a real boundary, unlike the BS you're citing above.--Львівське (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvivske, it is very clear that you don't understand or don't want to hear about, what wikipedia is for. Your block is a result of revert warring, without discussion (as a review of your contribs shows there was no discussion on this topic during the reverts except the remarks on this page which fail to address the point), and the spill over of the dispute from one article to another. Your edits and edit summaries are what led here (particularly this one). My determination is based on your edit summaries (listed in the diffs above). Also it is very easy for those of us reviewing your edits to see that reliable sources describe this person as Ukrainian and reliable soures are what we use on Misplaced Pages, not your opinion Lvivske.
Using wikipedia to further off site agendas or your POV is prohibitted. And especially so in Eastern European topics. You have been formally placed on notice of this.
Your failure to get the point vis-a-vis edits about race and ethnicity on wikipedia is your problem - whether that's due to a POV or a language barrier doesn't matter: wikipedia is a) not a battleground and b) requires competence to use. If you cannot adjust your behaviour to comply with our policies you will simply be prevented from breaking them.
I will remind you that ad hominem and uncivil comments like the above are not aceptable on wikipedia and may lead to further blocks, or the revocation of your talk age access while blocked. Please see WP:UNBLOCK for advice on how to request a review of this block--Cailil 11:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• A note for reviewing admins. This block was made in light of reverts on the same issue/topic but on two articles - all done without discussion or attempts at discussion by Lvivske. Given his history of editwarring he is, or should be, aware of WP:EDITWAR - hence the length of the block. Also the block is made in light of previous edis (wrt race & ethnicity) incompatible with wikipedia's purpose and code of conduct (see above comments).
  Also although Lvivske has only been listed as being notfified of WP:DIGWUREN by me yesterday - he was infact officially warned and notified here. Thus his behaviour in editwarring was in breach of those RFAR remedies after being warned.
  I've erred on the side of caution here only imposing a 72 hour block and officially listing Lvivske on WP:DIGWUREN's list of notified users, however this block does fall in a grey area of ArbCom enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN's discretionary sanctions as Lvivske was previously notified. If another admin feels that this should be reduced, but is concerned about it being an AEBLOCK, I'm happy to discuss this block with them and reduce it if given sound reasoning--Cailil 11:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am not asking for a change or anything but I couldn't help but comment when I saw this. Using a warning from 2 years ago as a reason to block now without warning is a very large stretch. You need to warn users with a recent warning. A two year old warning is stale. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed hence my erring on the side of caution with a 72 block for editwarring (which is the reason for blocking) and a 'fresh' and official warning about WP:DIGWUREN. However I've given the full history for anyone who wants/needs it, and as I said I'm more than hapy to discuss--Cailil 13:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

One single revert to remove unsourced WP:OR material does NOT constitute "edit warring" in any sense of the word. It seems you wish there was an edit war to justify your power trip, but it simply didn't pan out like you're describing here. Your condescending, contentious attitude and blatant misuse of sysop powers here are plain as day and I'll be sure to file a real report on your conduct as well. Blocking without warning, inventing an edit war that never occurred, pretending to link to an RS, lying about arbitration findings that were never filed or made. Is this some sort of sick joke?--Львівське (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvivske you have been warned already with regard to WP:CIVIL. If you cannot abide by wikipedia's code of conduct you will be prevented from breaking it.
Please follow the proceedure laid-out at WP:UNBLOCK if you wish to request a review of this block. Further misuse of the talk space here may result in the revocation of your talk page access--Cailil 23:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of the talk space now? Get over yourself. Baseless statements about 'competence' and a "language barrier" and you have the audacity now to talk about civility? Your entire diatribe so far has stunk of a reading comprehension issue on your end. I suggest you keep your personal inclinations and fervent at the door if you're going to continue with this baseless and entirely ignorant understanding of any of this site's rules you've stated thus far.--Львівське (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

unblock request

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

Request reason:

I was blocked without warning for an alleged violation of WP:EDITWAR, for the following edits: . The edits related to the article Ukrainian Americans were simply removal of unsourced material, as stated in the edit summaries. The first and only revert I made was because my good faith and reliably sourced edit was contested for being "opinion not fact", when I do have WP:RSs for the Tkachuk case, and per Kunis' talk page, no source exists to confirm her status. All I did was remove unsourced information that was inserted due to WP:OR. The other article I was reprimanded for was Mila Kunis, whom I made 2 category removals on, and was uncontested (ie. no warring or reversions even took place). I was blocked without warning, and without chance to discuss on the respective article's talk pages (however I did begin communication on my own talk page).
Based on a single revert, and no real back-and-forth disruptive editing taking place, my conduct in no way contravenes Edit Warring or Battleground policy. My record on this site is rather clean, save for a couple deserved cool downs over the last 2 years, and a warning dating back 2 years.
I have full understanding of wikipedia's code of conduct regarding 3RR, WP:BATTLE, and WP:EDITWAR. Neither myself, nor the article(s) in question were under a 1RR restriction. My edits were entirely in good faith, based on reliable sources (or in this case, a lack thereof), and were done from a neutral POV.

Accept reason:

Per my statements at WP:AE and in the discussion below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Again for reviewing sysops. Please see here this is not an AEBLOCK - Lvivske is blocked for edits about race, nationality and ethnicity that are not compatible with wikipedia's core policies or code of conduct. He is blocked for edit-warring about them. He was warned that this was coming too. He has been officially notified of WP:DIGWUREN, not sanctioned under its terms.
  Where there seems to be confusion is that Lvivske has already been warned about WP:DIGWUREN. I have stated that due to this prior warning it falls into a grey area, but I have erred on the side of caution with a 72 hour editwarring block. But in case an admin is worried that this might be a dodgy area for them to over turn (I'm not saying it is one fr definite just that some ppl might feel it is) I am happy to discuss or reduce it myself.
  Simply put, Lvivske is blocked for making edits that claim in BLPs that a person cannot be English because they are black and that a person is not Ukrainian because they are Jewish - and editwarring over the latter. To date Lvivske has not recognized why he was blocked or agreed not to repeat this behaviour (both of which would be grounds for immediate unblock from me) and has instead posted incivilly--Cailil 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into this; waiting for some more feedback at WP:AE, where I have commented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In my defense, concerning being "blocked for edits about race, nationality and ethnicity that are not compatible with wikipedia's core policies or code of conduct". The previous 'warning' by Cailil was about me changing English to British from a BLP lede, which is the WP:MOS suggested route (that is, citizenship in the lede, not ethnicity). In this case, just like the current case, Cailil invented an ethnic debate that simply did not exist. Per Cailil, "Simply put, Lvivske is blocked for making edits that claim in BLPs that a person cannot be English because they are black and that a person is not Ukrainian because they are Jewish", this statement is entirely a lie and fabrication of what my edits were about. The English example was changing ethnicity to citizenship, the current situation was removing unsourced WP:OR information. I never once said that you cannot be "English and black" or "Jewish and Ukrainian", these are fabrications and misquotes on Cailil's part.--Львівське (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, in the English/British/black case your edit summary at least invited such a misunderstanding, if it was one (but I agree the outcome of that edit was easily justifiable). In the present Ukrainian/Jewish case, I'm concerned about the way your position was misquoted in a rather distorting way here, and can only hope Cailil wasn't misled by that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, the edit summary was just something I jotted in and saw in hindsight how it did invite a problem; between Black people and English people, I saw no sources for ethnic identification so I erred on the side of nationality. It was a long time ago. I never intended for a blanket statement on ethnic mixing or some nonsense. The actually libelous misquote from User:Yulia Romero didn't help my case here, but Cailil knew what my edit summaries were, so why he would believe her lie without fact checking it is unknown. Unless, he just wanted to believe it.--Львівське (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

outside views

Ok, there's a bunch of bunkum going on here.

• First, referring to an established editor as "this account" or "that account" (as in "I warned this account", "It seems that this account ", "something an account", "the behaviour of this account", "in light of this account's", "will result in this account " - why not you just go ahead and call it "a little thing I'm going to play with like a cat with a mouse", have some guts and be honest - pretty clear sign that this is just an example of a power hungry admin lording it over small editors) is obnoxious and appears to be an attempt at de-personalizing Lvivske with a view towards making the sanction seem justifiable. Put a hood on their head before you block'em, that way you don't have to look into their eyes. But there's always a person behind "this account" and just because you don't refer to them as a person does not make it ok for you to ban them as if they were just an "account".
• Second, the statement by Cailil above that "It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect." pretty clearly indicates that s/he has a very strong opinion on this matter and hence, whatever the protestations to the contrary, is not "uninvolved" and hence has no authority to impose this kind of sanction. If you gonna block "accounts", then at least pretend not to take sides in the disputes.
• Third, there's no goddamn violation of any Misplaced Pages rules here. There's two reverts on one article. There's two reverts on another article. The two articles are sort of related. True, there's nothing on talk but the edit summary here is pretty descriptive . If this continued I could see a reason for some kind of a sanction. But it was still in the "we are having a disagreement - let's see what happens" stage. What the hell happened here? Been a long time since you banned some peon and were looking for a peasant to slap around or something?
• Fourth, this block shouldn't be "reduced". It should be overturned and Calil should be reminded that the job of administrators is to serve the Misplaced Pages editors and help them, not to bully them around. A note should be made in Lvivske's block log to that effect.

Seriously.

 Volunteer Marek  04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

VM has a valid point. Unless Lvivske is under a 1RR restriction, this block is not justified. PS. I have rarely interacted with Lvivske, and when I did, more often than not we disagreed. I think this is true for VM as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true, when I got the email notification of your comment, I was like "oh crap, Pio's going to tear me a new one"--Львівське (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... looking at this further, it seems that on the Mila Kunis article, the two diffs of supposed "reverts by Lvivske" presented above by Calil this one and this one as evidence of "edit warring" are...

1) consecutive, hence even if they were "reverts" of another user's edits would not count as 2 edits. 2) are not even reverts of another user, but simple straight forward edits. Who exactly got reverted here?

Ok. This is the point where you start wondering if somebody is just totally incompetent or lying. Given the nature of the accusation by Calil this does seem like the latter case. Volunteer Marek  05:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with VM's characterisation. Quite frankly, I do not see any "edit warring" going on here. When I checked the edit histories of the articles in question, I saw what VM saw; that is, a few edits which can hardly be classified as "reverts", let alone "edit warring". Invoking The Notorious D.I.G. does not give one a licence to smack heavy-handed blocks on users willy-nilly for editing within the norms of the project on a mildly contentious topic. This block is, IMO, totally unjustified and reflects poorly on the neutrality and judgement of the blocking admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this is a DIGWUREN block, there was no bloody edit warring. Category removals and a single revert with a descriptive edit summary are everyday occurrences that do not breach WP policy. I decided to stalk your RfA to see what people thought of you (and why on earth you were given the nightstick mop to begin with), and I can honestly say that the concerns of several Opposers regarding your neutrality (or, more appropriately, lack thereof) are completely justified. You are incapable of acting rationally when it comes to a sensitive sociological topic, and are far too quick to stigmatise and punish someone editing in a way that does not suit your own blatant POV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a serious enough abuse of admin power that I filed an AE report on it here . Volunteer Marek  06:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am here because I have been asked to provide an independent review of the comments made above about Cailil. It seems to me that Cailil has made some errors of judgement. However, there is no justification at all for the incivility and personal attacks to which he has been subjected.

1. Lvivske has been editing in very unhelpful ways over a long period, and has received numerous warnings about the problems, but clearly has no intention of changing. The latest edits fitted in with previous patterns of problematic editing, and it is clear that the block was based on the combined effect of accumulated editing problems, with the latest edits being just the last straw. It was probably a mistake to use the expression "edit warring" in referring to the block, as the edits referred to scarcely constituted edit warring in themselves. However, Cailil made it perfectly clear that those edits were not the whole reason for the block: "Lvivske is blocked for making edits that claim in BLPs that a person cannot be English because they are black and that a person is not Ukrainian because they are Jewish - and editwarring over the latter." As Cailil has pointed out, "the block is made in light of previous edits", and although an unfortunate choice of wording in describing the block may have initially given the impression that the block was for those edits alone, that error does not justify the accusations made above. To argue as though the whole block rests on the few edits referred to, and the reason for the block falls down if those edits do not constitute edit warring, is to completely ignore the explanation given.
2. Perhaps "I warned this account" would have been better expressed as "I warned this editor", and likewise with the other examples given, but really that is not a matter of great significance, and placing undue emphasis on that does not help.
3. Cailil would, in my judgement, have been better advised to have stood back and got less involved in arguments following the block.
4. The statement by Cailil above that "It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect" is a simple statement of fact. Lvivske has a persistent habit of denying that Jews from the Ukraine are Ukrainian, denying that black people who are born and bred in England are English, and so on. Cailil could perhaps have tried to seem more objective by saying something like "contrary to the consensus view held by Wikipedians and by society at large" instead of "incorrect", but to claim that making such a statement makes Cailil into a biased participant who cannot take administrative action is absurd.
5. We are told that the two edits to Mila Kunis are not reverts, and we are asked "Who exactly got reverted here?" The two edits removed content, so they were reverting the edits that inserted that content. For example, this edit reverted this edit by USchick from 29 August 2010. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think that it is possible to remove content without reverting whatever edit put the content there.
6. Volunteer Marek should remember to be civil. While some of Cailil's actions were not perfect, there is no justification for accusations of "bullying" or of suggesting that he is "totally incompetent or lying". Even if Volunteer Marek and Lothar von Richthofen think that Cailil's judgement was severely at fault, I see no reason at all to think that the actions were taken in anything other than good faith, and there is certainly a case for the block, whether or not one thinks that the case against is stronger. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A few notes: (a) I don't generally agree that all removals of content automatically constitute reverts (that assumption leads to conundrums if you take it to its logical consequences, but that's for another place to discuss; as a pragmatic guide, I would normally consider a removal a revert only if the edit that first added the content can be reasonably supposed to be within memory.) But even if we count it, it's still only a single edit on Mila Kunis. (b) As I stated elsewhere, I have the impression that Cailil got something seriously wrong if he though Lvivske was generally denying that Jews from Ukraine could be Ukrainian; if indeed there should be a "persistent habit" of him editing with such a tendency, I've not seen evidence of it. On the face of it, Lvivske's edit to Ukrainian Americans can well be described as a legitimate enforcement of WP:BLP. – I am considering lifting this block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You were cordially asked by the admin in question to review conduct on the talk page. How this makes you an "independent" reviewer is beyond me. Yes, incivility is to be found here, I will be the first to admit, having contributed a portion of it. But it was not baseless, and your pretensions of neutrality don't make things any better. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has had disagreements with Lvivske in the past I only noticed the discussion earlier since I have this page on my watch list and mostly didn't want to get involved which is why I only made a comment. But to be truthful I almost unblocked immediately this block was a very bad block by someone clearly involved and biased. So if people are taking a count do a +1 for lifting the block. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, I have Lvivske on my watchlist because of our past disagreements. Having looked through the edits in question it seems clear that this block should not be held. Additionally, the content disagreement between the blocking admin and Liviske regading whether Mila Kunis is Ukrainian or not, not only does not warrant a block but on the contrary, should make the admin more cautious, and refrain from using his admin priviliges (esp. where no technical criteria for using them were met). Besides, the fact that Cailil thinks that a person born in a Soviet Union republic must have the nationality of this republic shows little understanding of nationality and citizenship issues in the former SU. For example a Russian born in Estonian SSR is still a Russian, not an Estonian after the collapse of the SU. Similarly, a Jewish person born in Ukrainian SSR does not have to be Ukrainian. Any U.S. or British analogies are not relevant here, as the historical background and the situation is different. Anway, as to the block, I don't see why it has to take that much to admit the mistake, apologize, and have this over. I assume good faith of both Cailil and Lvivske. --Lysy 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be civil - but I don't see that as being the same as refraining from strongly worded criticism. Some situations require us to speak plainly and to the point. On the ladder of uncivil things one editor can do to another on Misplaced Pages, wrongly blocking someone and then pouring salt on the wounds is about as high as you can get - for one thing it leaves permanent scars on the block log, unlike an off-the-cuff comment which can be easily forgotten or ignored.

I also - like Lothar and FPS above - don't see anything wrong with the edits in question. I think you (JamesBWatson) bought into the whole story that Calil is telling. But it's just a story and not a particularly accurate one. There's been no edit warring. There's been no incvility on Lvivske's part. As to the content, I think FPS addresses the Mila Kunis one sufficiently. With regard to the David Haye article, Lvivske changed "English" to "British" since the term "English people" links to an article about a population which "Historically (is) descended from several genetically similar peoples—the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland), and the later Danes, Normans and other groups. ". If changing "English" to "British" was "racist", or something, in this context, then quick, find, whoever wrote the "English people" article and ban them too.

It should also give you two pause that folks who have had disagreements with Lvivske in the past are coming here to defend him. It's pretty clear that this was a horrible block, that it was abusive and that now just a whole bunch of excuses are being made. There's nothing uncivil about stating this fact. Volunteer Marek  17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPADE offers useful insights. I agree VM is calling spade a space, but let's all try to do it in a nicer way. On the subject of being nicer, it would be helpful if the blocking admin would apologize to the victim (Lvivske). Being nice and respectful cuts both ways - it is not only the admins who should be treated fairly... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the warning

Cailil's DIGWUREN warning to Lvivske was handed out for the same "reasons" as the block. After much discussion, these "reasons" were found to be spurious at best. As a result, the block was summarily overturned. Shouldn't this mean that the warning also be rescinded? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jo0doe

Hi, just wanted to let you know of a discussion over at the Blocks/Protections noticeboard at Commons regarding User:Jo0doe, since you have been involved with discussions regarding him in the past. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Lvivske: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Volhynian massacres

Lvivskie, your last editions in article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia are not according to the cited sources. Did you really read these books? GlaubePL (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? And can you be more specific? I just summarized what is already in the article - that we all verified ages ago. I've read English sources personally (Snyder, Katchanovski, etc)--Львівське (говорити) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am just citing Motyka, who is an expert (see Snyder's Reconstruction of Nations). It seems you don't know it. GlaubePL (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We should use updated and neutral saources (like Motyka) and not autdated and biased. GlaubePL (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not say a word about Magocsi. It is you who judge sources (Himka). BTW - Magocsi's A History of Ukraine is from 2011? I see that is is from 1996. GlaubePL (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

1RR violation

Okay, I'd hate to see anyone blocked over this but I'm starting to get irritated. With this edit you violated the 1RR restriction that is in place on the article. Please self-revert - and that includes this edit as well .VolunteerMarek 02:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being combative. --Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If I was being combative I would have already reported you on this - or on one of the previous occasions. I'm being reasonable and asking this as a favor.VolunteerMarek 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Me trying to hide the text to work on it and me inserting refs are two different edits, why should I revert myself for adding refs discussing on the talk page? That's a bit ridiculous--Львівське (говорити) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You changed text/numbers which are the subject of contention between yourself and others, and which you were changing in your previous revert. If you really want to wiki-lawyer it then sure, we can let an uninvolved admin decide whether or not those edits constitute "reverts" or not. (VM) 02:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Which sources do you have a problem with now? Because by your tone on the talk page, you said there was nothing up for dispute. Now I edit the page and you have a dispute with reliable sources. What gives. If you insist on me reverting myself just so I can do it again and you can revert me again tomorrow, just so we can arrive here again...why not skip that and tell me what the problem is?--Львівське (говорити) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just self revert. To prevent the edit war which you are forecasting/threatening here.VolunteerMarek 03:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what you want me to self-revert to, I'm making a series of constructive edits here and intend on adding more. Unless you just don't want me to add stuff that doesn't support your POV...--Львівське (говорити) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your subsequent edits - they may be fine. But the first two are a definite violation of 1RR.VolunteerMarek 03:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The first one I included the KW figure since it is a more accurate range than JUST using Motyka, and I added the citation; the other in the infobox shows the range we know of (and use the Magocsi citation for the lower bound). I don't see how this is 1RR at all, the previous edit that was reverted touched nothing in specific. Unless you're going back how far now? Why play games, tell me what's wrong with the edits that you want to dispute.--Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I already explained what the problem was. But alright have it your way.VolunteerMarek 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. .VolunteerMarek 03:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So this is what it feels like when doves cry.--Львівське (говорити) 03:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's uh... a bit of an unsettling analogy .VolunteerMarek 03:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How can you just leave me standing, Alone in a world that's so cold? Maybe I'm just too demanding, Maybe I'm just like my father, too bold--Львівське (говорити) 04:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok that's pretty funny.VolunteerMarek 04:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Hello Lvivske. There is an outstanding complaint about your edits at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lvivske reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: ). By my count, you did break the 1RR on 27 February and again on 2 March. It appears that talk discussion is continuing, but it would send the wrong message if admins stop enforcing the WP:1RR on this article. Do you think you can persuade Volunteer Marek to withdraw his complaint? If he will not, I could give you the choice of a voluntary restriction to avoid a block. Let me know, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Per your comment at User talk:EdJohnston#User:Lvivske, I'll close the complaint if you agree not to edit the article for the remainder of March. You can still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A month? Ouch. Can we at least get a neutral lede (assuming I'm just going to be reverted to the Motyka-only version after this) --Львівське (говорити) 17:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no jurisdiction over the article lead. You need to take the deal or not. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How long's the block for, a month? lol--Львівське (говорити) 17:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been blocked for as long as 72 hours in the past. The next one could be longer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So it goes 24hr,24hr,72hr,Ultra-super-long?--Львівське (говорити) 17:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be declining my offer, so I'll go ahead and close the 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to know what was behind door #2...I already took a voluntary 72hrs off the article, I think all things considered I'm being pretty agreeable here--Львівське (говорити) 17:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:1RR violation at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

Per WP:AN3#User:Lvivske reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1 week). Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to take a one-month break from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I believe that this block was not necessary because a) I took a voluntary, unasked 3 days off editing prior in a show of good faith b) Was not engaged in an edit war, and c) Was making good use of the talk page and engaging other users in further showing of good faith editing. Furthermore, considering my show of good faith so far, I find a 1 week block from all of Misplaced Pages is excessive.
In the complaint, it is alleged that I violated the 1RR on the page, saying that my 2nd edit (in response to a revert) was in the same as my 1st edit. I'm contending that the first edit was, after 3 days off and lots of page talk, not an revert to "my version" but an attempt to forge neutral ground on the stagnant dispute, so I hid the text until we could reach consensus. Following a revert, I tried plan B which was standard WP:CYCLE editing, and tried to be inclusive of all sources (I removed nothing, only added; the complete opposite of edit #1). The editor whom I had the back-and-forth with, as you can see on this talk page, was reluctant to tell me what about the edit he didn't like, and was more focused on having me self-revert rather than finding a solution, which I would have been more than happy to oblige. I don't believe the conduct displayed here constitutes either edit warring or a violation of the 1RR on the page. --Львівське (говорити) 15:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As VM stated below, Lvivske now understands the sanctions and the purpose of this block has been served. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What a crock. Ці статті дуже тенденційні з точки зору українською позиції. Щкода що тебе там не буде щоби якусь рівновагу дати. Bandurist (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a comment from the blocking admin. This is not the first time that Lvivske has been in trouble for edit warring on a topic involving Eastern Europe. Lvivske is still under an editing restriction about editing Ukraine-related articles that was imposed on Lvivske last October, taken from the log of WP:DIGWUREN:

		The Hockey Barnstar
		For your hockey contributions over the years, you're part of the original Hockey Barnstar class! Ravenswing 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.126 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lvivske. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 01:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dynamomo hockey logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Toddy1 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.