| Revision as of 22:19, 16 September 2009 view sourceRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Urgent warning: well it's my talk page I guess I can rename sections to whatever I feel like eh...← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:19, 16 September 2009 view source Good Olfactory (talk | contribs)688,950 edits →Urgent answer: block commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| See, this is the problem that I have experienced with you from the outset of this problem Sandstein, in that you don't read what is written, but rather jump the gun entirely, ignoring what is written, accusing of issuing threats, wikilawyering and a host of other things. Read what I wrote in its entireity. I wrote explicitly, '''This is not a legal threat, before anyone accuses me of this, but according to Sandstein, this is the only option that I have, and it is an option that one has to consider. ''But, I won't do that, I will let basic common sense prevail''.''' It was right there in the diff that you just posted, how could you not see it? Like I said, I will let common sense prevail, and I will remove libellous information on sight, from any article, no matter what subject it may be in, and whether that article is covered by any ban or not, as interpreted by yourself. I suggest you read ] some time. And I will report potentially libellous material to the BLP noticeboard. And you are right, the continued operation of Misplaced Pages does not depend on any one editor; but libel laws in the US, which ] has to adhere to, are such that if the subject whom the libel is directed towards is able to prove that information has been published and seen by an audience, they may have a pretty good case...the nature of WP makes this quite easy to prove...and my removing material which breaches ] is not a hindrance to the project, but rather a help...do you really think I am a vindictive prick that I would bring trouble to a project that I have dedicated a lot of my time to? And probably unknown to you, that I am still contributing to in my normal area of editing. I have removed BLP material from articles in the past that has been present for over 12 months or more, so one should be thankful for me removing such information, instead of letting it sit there and possibly leave the door open for problems. This is how I have always operated, and I will continue to operate. In fact Sandstein, my last question which was asked above was asked on purpose, just for me to see what your response would be, and whether you have actually thought things thru before answering. It is obvious you have not, particularly as you completely missed what I wrote above in my initial post. As to misjudging anything I may or may not do, I really don't have much faith in your judgement, when it is obvious you have no idea on how I approach such things, unless you can provide some diffs to back up your bad faith personal attack, where I have used issues such as reporting a BLP violation as a way of attacking others. Or wait, I can show you an article where I was getting attacked by both sides (at one stage) -- ] - so just how do I deal with BLP violations again? Therefore, I see no reason to retract anything, as you have totally misread (or not read) and misunderstood what I wrote, that's not my fault now is it? Nor is it the first time this has occurred with yourself. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | See, this is the problem that I have experienced with you from the outset of this problem Sandstein, in that you don't read what is written, but rather jump the gun entirely, ignoring what is written, accusing of issuing threats, wikilawyering and a host of other things. Read what I wrote in its entireity. I wrote explicitly, '''This is not a legal threat, before anyone accuses me of this, but according to Sandstein, this is the only option that I have, and it is an option that one has to consider. ''But, I won't do that, I will let basic common sense prevail''.''' It was right there in the diff that you just posted, how could you not see it? Like I said, I will let common sense prevail, and I will remove libellous information on sight, from any article, no matter what subject it may be in, and whether that article is covered by any ban or not, as interpreted by yourself. I suggest you read ] some time. And I will report potentially libellous material to the BLP noticeboard. And you are right, the continued operation of Misplaced Pages does not depend on any one editor; but libel laws in the US, which ] has to adhere to, are such that if the subject whom the libel is directed towards is able to prove that information has been published and seen by an audience, they may have a pretty good case...the nature of WP makes this quite easy to prove...and my removing material which breaches ] is not a hindrance to the project, but rather a help...do you really think I am a vindictive prick that I would bring trouble to a project that I have dedicated a lot of my time to? And probably unknown to you, that I am still contributing to in my normal area of editing. I have removed BLP material from articles in the past that has been present for over 12 months or more, so one should be thankful for me removing such information, instead of letting it sit there and possibly leave the door open for problems. This is how I have always operated, and I will continue to operate. In fact Sandstein, my last question which was asked above was asked on purpose, just for me to see what your response would be, and whether you have actually thought things thru before answering. It is obvious you have not, particularly as you completely missed what I wrote above in my initial post. As to misjudging anything I may or may not do, I really don't have much faith in your judgement, when it is obvious you have no idea on how I approach such things, unless you can provide some diffs to back up your bad faith personal attack, where I have used issues such as reporting a BLP violation as a way of attacking others. Or wait, I can show you an article where I was getting attacked by both sides (at one stage) -- ] - so just how do I deal with BLP violations again? Therefore, I see no reason to retract anything, as you have totally misread (or not read) and misunderstood what I wrote, that's not my fault now is it? Nor is it the first time this has occurred with yourself. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ===Block comment=== | |||
| I've been observing the entirety of this discussion here and on ANI. It has gone on long enough, in my opinion. Russavia, you have engaged in some text book wikilawyering, in my opinion. I wouldn't say Sandstein's actions have necessarily been perfect. However, you have pushed the limits too far in this case. You have been repeatedly uncivil. You have not demonstrated much desire to change your behaviour, and most of the extended discussion has been your attempts to punch logical holes in the discretionary ban put in place by an administrator. In so doing, you mentioned that according to the logic of that admin, your only option would be to recommend legal action. You say this is not a legal threat, but this is very much the kind of wikilawyering/wikilogic disruption bans are intended to avoid. I'm sorry, but I've seen more than enough to ban you indefinitely. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:19, 16 September 2009
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| ПРЕВЕД! |
| 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. |
|---|
 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. |
notes to self - nothing to see here
Quote for today
Need a little humour, this is how I feel....
- Eddie: Right - I, the proposed accused, think that, well, I mean, you know, well the day in question was not a good day for me, all right? But I put it to you that I don't see how any day could have been good the way this bloody country's run. Well, you know, I was just trying to do my best, trying to get from A to B, do a little shopping. I was trying to take control of my life, you know, only to find that it's actually controlled for me by petty bureaucracy and bits of bloody paper - ignorant bloody petty rules and laws that just obstruct every tiny little action until you've committed a crime without even knowing it! I mean, you know, why can't life just be made a little easier for everybody, eh? Why can't it be more like the Continent, and then run down the street in front of charging bulls whilst letting fireworks off out of his bloody nostrils without anyone blinking an eye? Uh? Because it's probably a local holiday and nobody's at work because they all want to have just a little bit of fun and they're not intimidated by some outdated work ethic. I mean, there has to be more to life than just being safe...
- Judge: Is there a point to all of this?
- Eddie: Yes, Yes!... Why, oh why, do we pay taxes, hmmm? I mean, just to have bloody parking restrictions- and BUGGERY-UGLY traffic wardens, and BOLLOCKY-pedestrian-BLOODY-crossings?... and those BASTARD railings outside shops windows, making it so difficult, so you can't even get in them! I mean, I know they're there to stop stupid people running into the street and killing themselves! But we're not all stupid! We don't all need nurse-maiding. I mean, why not just have a Stupidity Tax? Just tax the stupid people!
- Patsy: And let them DIE!
- Eddie: Yes!
- Judge: Anymore of this ridiculous rant, and I'll put you both away!
- Gran: Hear, hear!
- Judge: Edina Margaret Rose Monsoon, I hereby sentence you to...
Ref --Russavia 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein's second unnecessary jumping of the gun
Russavia, your statement on WP:ANI, "I will in future ... urge them to sue the Foundation" (), is a legal threat against the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as the announcement of an intent to disrupt the project. Please unambiguously withdraw it with your next edit, or you may be indefinitely blocked. Sandstein 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sandstein, your bulying and threatening is now becoming a problem. I strongly suggest you back off, before others take action against you. You are too involved with Russavia now for your judgement to be sound or trusted. Please let others deal with these matters. You are only an ordinary admin please stop crediting yourself with airs, graces and powers to which you are not entitled. Russavia, you need to clarify your meaning. Giano (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I support Sandstein's point in this assessment. If that legal threat is not withdrawn, it will lead to an immediate indefinite block. Good Ol’factory 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict with Good Ol'factory) I kind of second Giano, too. Sandstein, if you believe that it is OK for an editor restricted due to conflicts to leave reporting of BLP violations and copyvios to others, then surely we can expect those same others to be able to deal with an alleged legal threat by a user with whom you are so obviously and deeply in conflict?and so we did
- And yes, Russavia, please do clarify what you meant. The "but, I won't do that" part kind of negates the "I will in future attempt to contact the subjects of said articles directly, and advise them of the violations and urge them to sue the Foundation" portion, but all in all it's all very confusing and doesn't look good at all. Sandstein may not at this point be the best person to bring this comment up, but brought up it should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:52, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
- I do not consider myself to be in conflict with Russavia for the purpose of remaining an uninvolved administrator. WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions makes it clear that "enforcing the provisions of this decision" - which is what I am doing all along - "will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." It also states that "Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions", so Russavia can make an appeal at WP:AE if he believes that I am too involved to take certain actions. (That is, after he unambiguously withdraws his threat.) Sandstein 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- You don't consider yourself involved? Well I do. Particularly given your total misunderstanding or ignoring of probably everything I have written. I have ZERO faith in your ability to treat me fairly as a user; particularly when I believe it was as a result of you being tired and frustated (which you admitted to being), and punishing because I dare question your reasoning. You are not above anyone on this project WP, and editors have the right to question. What is amazing is that throughout this entire debacle I can find nothing from you where you admit that you have done anything wrong in this whole drama; yet I see all types of admissions from me. I also see a heap of personal attacks on myself (and my editing) from you; but few from me towards you. So yeah, you are involved. --Russavia 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not consider myself to be in conflict with Russavia for the purpose of remaining an uninvolved administrator. WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions makes it clear that "enforcing the provisions of this decision" - which is what I am doing all along - "will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." It also states that "Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions", so Russavia can make an appeal at WP:AE if he believes that I am too involved to take certain actions. (That is, after he unambiguously withdraws his threat.) Sandstein 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Urgent answer
See, this is the problem that I have experienced with you from the outset of this problem Sandstein, in that you don't read what is written, but rather jump the gun entirely, ignoring what is written, accusing of issuing threats, wikilawyering and a host of other things. Read what I wrote in its entireity. I wrote explicitly, This is not a legal threat, before anyone accuses me of this, but according to Sandstein, this is the only option that I have, and it is an option that one has to consider. But, I won't do that, I will let basic common sense prevail. It was right there in the diff that you just posted, how could you not see it? Like I said, I will let common sense prevail, and I will remove libellous information on sight, from any article, no matter what subject it may be in, and whether that article is covered by any ban or not, as interpreted by yourself. I suggest you read WP:BLP some time. And I will report potentially libellous material to the BLP noticeboard. And you are right, the continued operation of Misplaced Pages does not depend on any one editor; but libel laws in the US, which WP:BLP has to adhere to, are such that if the subject whom the libel is directed towards is able to prove that information has been published and seen by an audience, they may have a pretty good case...the nature of WP makes this quite easy to prove...and my removing material which breaches WP:BLP is not a hindrance to the project, but rather a help...do you really think I am a vindictive prick that I would bring trouble to a project that I have dedicated a lot of my time to? And probably unknown to you, that I am still contributing to in my normal area of editing. I have removed BLP material from articles in the past that has been present for over 12 months or more, so one should be thankful for me removing such information, instead of letting it sit there and possibly leave the door open for problems. This is how I have always operated, and I will continue to operate. In fact Sandstein, my last question which was asked above was asked on purpose, just for me to see what your response would be, and whether you have actually thought things thru before answering. It is obvious you have not, particularly as you completely missed what I wrote above in my initial post. As to misjudging anything I may or may not do, I really don't have much faith in your judgement, when it is obvious you have no idea on how I approach such things, unless you can provide some diffs to back up your bad faith personal attack, where I have used issues such as reporting a BLP violation as a way of attacking others. Or wait, I can show you an article where I was getting attacked by both sides (at one stage) -- Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya - so just how do I deal with BLP violations again? Therefore, I see no reason to retract anything, as you have totally misread (or not read) and misunderstood what I wrote, that's not my fault now is it? Nor is it the first time this has occurred with yourself. --Russavia 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Block comment
I've been observing the entirety of this discussion here and on ANI. It has gone on long enough, in my opinion. Russavia, you have engaged in some text book wikilawyering, in my opinion. I wouldn't say Sandstein's actions have necessarily been perfect. However, you have pushed the limits too far in this case. You have been repeatedly uncivil. You have not demonstrated much desire to change your behaviour, and most of the extended discussion has been your attempts to punch logical holes in the discretionary ban put in place by an administrator. In so doing, you mentioned that according to the logic of that admin, your only option would be to recommend legal action. You say this is not a legal threat, but this is very much the kind of wikilawyering/wikilogic disruption bans are intended to avoid. I'm sorry, but I've seen more than enough to ban you indefinitely. Good Ol’factory 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)