Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:36, 18 September 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

notes to self - nothing to see here

• User_talk:Ezhiki/2008#Hymn_of_the_RF
• User_talk:Ezhiki/2008#WP:RUSSIA_template

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holiday and nobody's at work because they all want to have just a little bit of fun and they're not intimidated by some outdated work ethic.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)

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)

I trust this leave a question of what to do with me then? I, after all, should now be sanctioned for abetting wikilawyering or something to that effect? I don't know how closely you followed the thread and the discussions around it, but I am basically one administrator who supports Russavia's right to "punch of logical holes" in what I, too, see as an incompetent and unfair treatment by an administrator under influence of his self-admitted lack of personal comfort (tiredness etc.). I may not like the way Russavia is handling the situation any more than you do, and often think that he cares way too much about some things that in reality are not all that important, but I'm perfectly willing to give him a discount on the grounds of both extreme frustration and extreme passion for the subject that interests him the most. Not many people can stay rock-solid calm under duress, is it so hard to remember? Especially when what he has to say (and he raises a lot of valid points!) gets completely ignored by everyone but a handful of people? You yourself admit that Sandstein's actions may not have necessarily been perfect, and I myself would be more than willing to give him a good-faith discount as well, because he is only human and can screw up every now and then. But imperfect behavior breeds imperfect actions, and if, as a result of those actions we get a victim who screams for being unfairly beaten, should we arrest the victim for disturbing public peace instead of helping? I am absolutely, completely baffled with what is going on...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:43, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that these problems are not a one-off situation. Russavia has a long history of incivility and conflict with other users. The block I imposed was not solely for this one week of "wikilawyering" or for making one particular comment (that he would not retract) that is ambiguous as to whether it constitutes a legal threat or not. It is for the repeated incivility, lack of assuming good faith, and disruption that his edits have caused. Enough is enough. It's not even a close call in my opinion. Good Ol’factory 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|In light of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Concentrated_stalking_and_attacks_against_Russavia, I feel I have a right to participate in this discussion and provide info. I will limit my editing entirely to this issue.}} --Russavia 06:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per your agreement to the stipulations laid out below. Request handled by: Jeremy 07:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

If you are willing to restrict yourself only to commenting on that issue for the time being, until someone can review the circumstances of your block in far greater detail, I am willing to unblock you. However, bear in mind you will be held to your word and the first edit not to that issue and/or not to AN/I will result in the block being reinstated until it can be further reviewed. Is this acceptable? -Jeremy 07:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this Jeske, I agree by the terms that both you and I have stated above. --Russavia 07:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have communicated with Good Olfactory and he agrees that you should be permitted to take part in any ArbCom case concerning this incident. However, AC/N is not an ArbComm case page, and thus for violating the terms of your unblock I am reblocking you until such time as the case materializes. -Jeremy 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have unblocked you to participate in the ArbComm case. Again, your edits are restricted to participation in the case. -Jeremy 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jeske, sorry I didn't see the limitation to the AN/I...I misread that and misinterpreted it...my apologies...my bad. Thanks. --Russavia 05:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

Hi Russavia! I just wanted to say that somehow I was autoblocked yesterday as a result of your block and it brought my attention here. I hope the Arbcom case works out for you and you resume editing. If NVO vouches for you, then so do I. Best, DVD 06:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and support DVD. And also to NVO as well. I would post on his talk page, but I am not allowed to under the terms of my unblock. I hope all of these editors get what is so rightfully deserved, because for too long they have been allowed to get away with their stalking, harrassment and treating WP as a battleground, simply by denying it. Now there is no denying it. --Russavia 07:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already more than enough evidence doing the rounds for you to be unblocked unconditionally. I think it would be a pleasant and concillitory gesture if Sandstein were the one to lift any sanctions against you. He has been, in a way, as much a victim as you. I hope he is big enough to see that. Giano (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano, as I am unable to edit any other page than my talk page, and the Arbcom pages, I am halfway sending an email to Sandstein...I hold no ill-will towards him, but I hope he recognises that this cabal have not only harrassed myself, but have also abused processes on WP in order to gain the upper hand in battleground conditions that they have created, fostered and advanced. As I am not allowed to discuss anything in relation to their editing, due to the ban that is in place I do sincerely hope that there will be some discussion with a view to at least lessening the ban that was implemented. I don't expect a full reprieve, as I do admit my responsibility, but at least it is now know that there are reasons behind what I may have done on occasion. --Russavia 08:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, the sanctions against you were imposed because of your own conduct, i.e. for reasons unrelated to the matter now under arbitration, and as such, recent events are no reason for a modification of your sanctions, which remain in force insofar as I am concerned. As previously noted, I will not object if any other uninvolved administrator modifies the topic ban to an extent she or he deems appropriate and takes over its enforcement. If you have been the victim of any misconduct by others, the Arbitration Committee will determine this and decide about appropriate sanctions against the users at issue, but any misconduct by others does not mitigate or excuse your misconduct.  Sandstein  08:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)