| Revision as of 09:54, 28 March 2013 view sourceRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Malick78 could you please come here to discuss an important matter← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:30, 28 March 2013 view source Russavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Use of OS by Alison: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
| Hi Russavia. I appreciate your caution in self-reverting your Croatia-related edit as a possible violation of your Eastern Europe topic ban, and in disclosing this at . I didn't imagine that this edit would lead to a block, though as it has, I should probably point out an earlier edit of yours which could also be construed as violating the topic ban: in you post an image and caption concerning the Moscow Metro. Unlike the Croatia one you did not immediately revert it, so I'm assuming that this was an oversight on your part. —] (]) 08:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | Hi Russavia. I appreciate your caution in self-reverting your Croatia-related edit as a possible violation of your Eastern Europe topic ban, and in disclosing this at . I didn't imagine that this edit would lead to a block, though as it has, I should probably point out an earlier edit of yours which could also be construed as violating the topic ban: in you post an image and caption concerning the Moscow Metro. Unlike the Croatia one you did not immediately revert it, so I'm assuming that this was an oversight on your part. —] (]) 08:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks for bringing that to my attention. In my zeal to do what is best for this project, I simply copied what in my Commons userspace and pasted it here. I, of course, instantly realised that the Russian aviation photos would be topic ban violation material, but there's obviously a few I have missed. I have just looked at the page, and after reading my appeal to Arbcom (the email from 22 February) I have just noticed that ] is made almost entirely of Latvian politicians, ] is an Estonian ship, ] has a couple of photos too which technically shouldn't be there. Unfortunately at this stage, as you can see I have just been bullied and railroaded by Sandstein with a 2 week block, so I am not able to do anything about them at the moment. When someone has the balls to unblock me (which I am not going to hold my breathe for) or until the block expires, I will be certain to remove them. Or, if you like, if you are in helpful mood, you might like to place those in relevant articles for me, and remove them from that page? Would appreciate that, as would our readers I suspect. ] (]) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | :Thanks for bringing that to my attention. In my zeal to do what is best for this project, I simply copied what in my Commons userspace and pasted it here. I, of course, instantly realised that the Russian aviation photos would be topic ban violation material, but there's obviously a few I have missed. I have just looked at the page, and after reading my appeal to Arbcom (the email from 22 February) I have just noticed that ] is made almost entirely of Latvian politicians, ] is an Estonian ship, ] has a couple of photos too which technically shouldn't be there. Unfortunately at this stage, as you can see I have just been bullied and railroaded by Sandstein with a 2 week block, so I am not able to do anything about them at the moment. When someone has the balls to unblock me (which I am not going to hold my breathe for) or until the block expires, I will be certain to remove them. Or, if you like, if you are in helpful mood, you might like to place those in relevant articles for me, and remove them from that page? Would appreciate that, as would our readers I suspect. ] (]) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Use of OS by Alison == | |||
| Apologies Alison, my screen resolution was all screwed up for unknown resolution and I read Mr. Stradivarius as Malick78 in scrolling. But let's start again. that ] oversighted 16 consecutive edits at the AE starting with a post by Mr. Stradivarius in which he noted that he wasn't getting involved, but was wondering why it took him a while to see who was being discussed. He then realised that ] is ], and he enquired as to why it wasn't noted at ]. | |||
| It has been oversighted as "defamation"/"personal information issues"/"borderline personal information". | |||
| Alison can you please come here and explain why this fact was oversighted. I know that at least one other OS'er objected to the OS, so I really have to question why OS has been used by yourself in this case. It might be seen as somewhat inappropriate given a couple of things. Firstly, you and Marek are members of the same trolling website (you are even a moderator there) and hiding the fact that Radeksz is Volunteer Marek is Radeksz leaves one with more answers than questions. In fact, one has to wonder where there was any defamation in what was posted at all. | |||
| Just curious as to why those edits were oversighted above objections from another OS, and when it doesn't seem above board? ] (]) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:30, 28 March 2013
| Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message, alternatively you are welcome to email me. If you leave a message here for me and it requires a reply, I will reply here, so you may want to add my talk page to your watchlist. All users have my permission to remove any bot messages from my talk page at any time. |
|---|
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Polandball
Would you please remove all mention of polandball from your user page. Currently, a mini edit war is in progress, with this edit being the most recent, and which restored the offensive cartoons. Possibly you overlooked my previous request on 8 March 2013 (diff; archived here), so please either remove the cartoon section, or again remove my request as an indication that you want to keep the polandball reference on your user page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not post on my talk page again in relation to this "issue" whilst there is a topic ban in place, as it could be construed as baiting in trying to make breach my topic ban. I just hope that no-one sees this response as a breach of said topic ban; but I need to respond to it to make it clear to Johnuniq not to bring this issue to me again; I was hoping the first time I ignored it would have been enough. Russavia (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
user page protection
Sorry, I've had to protect your user page for a few days to allow the morons to find something else to do. It expires in three days; if you want to edit your user page before then, let me (or any other admin) know and we'll remove protection or make the edit for you, one of the two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
{{editprotect}} Whilst I appreciate that my userpage is currently the centre of attention for a few unsavoury types, I am asking that the current protection be removed and replaced with permanent protection against unregistered editors being able to edit. This will prevent the obvious IP of 2 permabanned trolls (we know who they are) from touching anything to do with my user page. Other than that, I am more than capable of editing my own userpage as required. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Done - Thank you for that. Russavia (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the image
Russ, thanks for the image you added to Anthony Field. As the main editor of most of the articles about The Wiggles, I've had a struggle finding good, free images. Do you have to have any more, especially of the group's members? We really need an image of the new group all together. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL I was just comming to say the same thing yes that is a wonderfull picture of anthony thank you !! Jena (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, my pleasure. If I come across any decent photos of other Wiggles, as individuals or as a group, I will surely add them to the articles concerned. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut)
hia
hey, I was curious if you "agreed" with the idea or the post above yours? User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contributors_banned_over_conduct 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
March 2013
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your Eastern Europe topic ban recently affirmed by the Arbitration Committee, as described in the results section of the enforcement request brought by you,
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Get ready to go to Arbcom Sandstein. Better have all your evidence ready, I've got mine almost done. I've shown numerous people User_talk:Sandstein#Please_cease_all_activities_on_the_Volunteer_Marek_AE_report and their comments is that you have really shown what a power hungry twit and bully you are. You are WRONG in your decision to nullify Arbcom sanctions and decide that they don't apply any more. Might I suggest that you plan for a life on this project without the admin tools, for you have just in plain sight misused your tools, and I will be seeing to it that are stripped from you in the most public way possible. Russavia (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am hereby placing a link to a copy of the text of my appeal to Arbcom for all and sundry to read. Commons:User:Russavia/Appeal -- that I waited for almost 8 months in the hope that someone would do the right thing is a disgrace to this community. You better get well acquainted with everything in that appeal Sandstein, because that appeal as well as your abuse of the tools just now is not going to end well for you. I begged for you to wait, but you like a hardarse ignored everything I had to say. In the end Arbcom were told straight that my block and topic ban last year was a disgraceful action, and how the community was deceived and lied to by numerous people (their day will come at Arbcom too, trust me on that). I have spent the last year all but blocked over an issue that was manufactured and overblown by people with a reason to lie. That year will not be in vain. Let's see if the next two weeks is a mini-repeat of last year -- is there an admin out there who has the balls to undo this clear abuse of our processes, but also the authority of admins to declare null and void Arbcom sanctions. Let's see shall we. Someone needs to finally take a stand, and do the right fucking thing on this project! Russavia (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Also Sandstein, I hope you can explain how you came to reach the decision you did on whether the interaction bans were valid or not, because when one looks at it logically one can see that you have acted in defiance of your authority as an admin. But when one looks at what you did behind the scenes in conjunction with a certain editor at WP:IBAN is just the cherry on top of the icecream. During the AE report that editor adds this to the policy. You then amend it -- the edit summary of your edit is quite amusing considering the conclusion you reached at AE. That editor then posts Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Clarification_in_the_interaction_between_site_and_interaction_ban and he hopes "it is non-controversial?" Oh no, of course not, it is entirely uncontroversial to go and amend POLICY in the middle of an AE enforcement to ensure that a fellow EEMLer is let off without sanction. If this has happened once, chances are it's happened before right? It would indeed be interesting have a look at the previous appearances of Volunteer Marek at AE, and see if he got off without sanction as a result of deceptive shit going on in the background. I know of one occasion it did; on that occasion Piotrus went running to Newyorkbrad and wikilawyered his EMML buddy out of yet another block. It is for that reason, upon seeing that occur, and my block being left intact, that I sent Arbcom a number of emails to ask them what the fuck they were doing. Would anyone like to have a look at other instance, and see if that held true, and who the AE closing admin was. I know the AE from last year didn't see any possibility of Piotrus getting VM out of the shit; but instead, several days into VM's massive two week block (don't worry VM, it will be an indefinite block for you soon enough), Piotrus goes and awards VM a purple heart barnstar; the purple heart of course being awarded to those injured in battle; what a nice fitting tribute to the battleground that is Volunteer Marek's talk page -- it's still displayed there. Perhaps a Polish speaker can tell us what it means?
Sandstein, you should start doing the right thing right about now! Unblock and hand in your tools voluntarily, because if you don't I am going to be insisting that along with desysop you are banished from this project entirely...for good. You foolish, foolish person. Russavia (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction: Interaction ban
The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):
You are indefinitely banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), as described in Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Interaction ban. For additional clarity, this interaction ban includes (but is not limited to) forbidding you from alleging that Volunteer Marek engaged in misconduct outside the English Misplaced Pages.
You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in the results section of this arbitration enforcement request..
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 07:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You fool, see Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted is a still active Arbcom sanction, that you have again overstepped your authority as an admin in nullifying. Please show me where in your admin guide it gives you the authority to declare null and void an active Arbcom sanction. Foolish mate, real foolish. Russavia (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please alert Giano
Could someone please alert User_talk:Giano to the above actions and my comments, and please ask him to come here to, if he wouldn't mind, discuss this with me. He is well versed in numerous aspects of this history relating to myself, and I am sure that he will be especially interested to see how the soon-to-be-ex-admin Sandstein responds. He might have used his admin tools to bully me, but let's see anyone try a thing with someone the likes of Giano around here. I will bring him up to speed, quite openly, on what an absolute disgrace this place is. Numerous people need to start saying their goodbyes to this project for good. I will be seeing to it. Russavia (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban violation
Hi Russavia. I appreciate your caution in self-reverting your Croatia-related edit as a possible violation of your Eastern Europe topic ban, and in disclosing this at a recent Arbitration Enforcement discussion involving you. I didn't imagine that this edit would lead to a block, though as it has, I should probably point out an earlier edit of yours which could also be construed as violating the topic ban: in this edit you post an image and caption concerning the Moscow Metro. Unlike the Croatia one you did not immediately revert it, so I'm assuming that this was an oversight on your part. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention. In my zeal to do what is best for this project, I simply copied what in my Commons userspace and pasted it here. I, of course, instantly realised that the Russian aviation photos would be topic ban violation material, but there's obviously a few I have missed. I have just looked at the page, and after reading my appeal to Arbcom (the email from 22 February) I have just noticed that User:Russavia/Agenda#Politicians is made almost entirely of Latvian politicians, User:Russavia/Agenda#Ships is an Estonian ship, User:Russavia/Agenda#Sports has a couple of photos too which technically shouldn't be there. Unfortunately at this stage, as you can see I have just been bullied and railroaded by Sandstein with a 2 week block, so I am not able to do anything about them at the moment. When someone has the balls to unblock me (which I am not going to hold my breathe for) or until the block expires, I will be certain to remove them. Or, if you like, if you are in helpful mood, you might like to place those in relevant articles for me, and remove them from that page? Would appreciate that, as would our readers I suspect. Russavia (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Use of OS by Alison
Apologies Alison, my screen resolution was all screwed up for unknown resolution and I read Mr. Stradivarius as Malick78 in scrolling. But let's start again. This shows that User:Alison oversighted 16 consecutive edits at the AE starting with a post by Mr. Stradivarius in which he noted that he wasn't getting involved, but was wondering why it took him a while to see who was being discussed. He then realised that User:Radeksz is User:Volunteer Marek, and he enquired as to why it wasn't noted at WP:EEML.
It has been oversighted as "defamation"/"personal information issues"/"borderline personal information".
Alison can you please come here and explain why this fact was oversighted. I know that at least one other OS'er objected to the OS, so I really have to question why OS has been used by yourself in this case. It might be seen as somewhat inappropriate given a couple of things. Firstly, you and Marek are members of the same trolling website (you are even a moderator there) and hiding the fact that Radeksz is Volunteer Marek is Radeksz leaves one with more answers than questions. In fact, one has to wonder where there was any defamation in what was posted at all.
Just curious as to why those edits were oversighted above objections from another OS, and when it doesn't seem above board? Russavia (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)