Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 4 April 2013

User:Russavia/Top

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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.

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)

Discretionary sanctions may legitimately override an older committee sanction. I regret to inform you that this sanction is therefore procedurally sound. AGK 11:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So here we are, an arb, saying that an admin is able to nullify at their own discretion any in force Arbitration sanction. So can you please explain to me why, you as an Arb, wasted my time asking me for my input at this amendment request, and 9 Arbs in total voted for the limited amendment only between me and Nug, and 2 opposed it. Not a single one of you stated on the record that the interaction ban was apparently no longer valid, as was declared by Sandstein. But now, all of a sudden, Piotrus "uncontroversially" adds to WP:IBAN a most controversial sentence to our policy, which is automatically seized upon by Sandstein to unilaterally declare that Arbcom sanction null and void. Sorry AGK, that is rubbish. Can you please give other examples on this project where an admin has been given carte blanch authority to null and void an Arbcom sanction. Can you also please explain why you stated that the report had to be taken to AE, instead to Arbcom when I enquired about it on T. Canens talk page. Why didn't you state then, for the record, that the sanctions were no longer valid? I expect the answers to these questions in a timely fashion. Russavia (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that you carefully reread that sentence added to WP:IBAN, as it appears to say the opposite of what you seem to think it says. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I know how to read, and I know precisely what is says. You see English is my first language. "A ban from interacting with an editor remains in effect if the editor is later blocked or sitebanned, unless the interaction ban is explicitly lifted." The amendment by Sandstein of Piotrus' addition does not negate the fact that the arbcom enacted interaction bans are still valid. Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted and Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted are still active Arbcom sanctions. Except there have been two amendments. The first was one allowing interactions between myself and User:Estlandia. And oddly, a one-way interaction ban allowing Nug to interact with me (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Editors_restricted) -- but an amendment was never considered for Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted. That Piotrus decided to sneak that in during an active AE, but failed to mention it in the AE itself, shows a level of deceptiveness on his part, especially with his snide "uncontroversial" remark. that we should not be rewarding or encouraging. Please show me precisely where this interaction ban was explicitly lifted by Arbcom, as it pertains to myself and/or Volunteer Marek. Russavia (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, I normally do not respond to questions asked in that tone. But since you seem to be genuinely confused about this, let me explain: I consider (as others did) that it is unclear whether Volunteer Marek's arbitral interaction ban still applies. The remedy specifies that "editors sanctioned by name" in the decision are interaction-banned. But since Volunteer Marek's sanction in that decision was later rescinded, it is not clear whether he is still an "editor sanctioned by name" and therefore subject to the topic ban. The same ambiguity applies to your own arbitral interaction ban, which refers to "editors from the EEML case", because it is not clear whether Volunteer Marek is still an "editor from" that case, whatever that may mean. In view of this ambiguity, I consider that these interaction bans are not clear enough to be enforced. That's why I imposed a new a discretionary sanctions interaction ban. This does not void the arbitral interaction ban, but rather reaffirms and renews it. Additionally, if another administrator is (unlike me) of the view that the arbitral ban is clear enough to be enforceable, then they can still enforce it. My action therefore in no way voids the arbitral remedy (it can't; I have no authority to do that.) I leave it to arbitrators who may read this to determine whether the original remedies may need wording adjustments in the view of these concerns.

I also note that your recent posts to this page appear to violate your interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, but considering that these posts were made in the context of criticizing my actions, I leave it to other administrators to determine what, if any, enforcement action may be needed with respect to these posts. (This is not to be construed as a recusal concerning administrative actions in reaction to any future edits by you.)  Sandstein  13:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Russavia, I normally do not respond to questions asked in that tone." If that is the case, it may be better if you ceased appointing yourself the Misplaced Pages Chief of Police. I rather think that you will find that dealing with angry people rather goes with the job.  Giano  17:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, don't be condescending. I am not genuinely confused, I am thoroughly disgusted in you and your behaviour and I believe that you are no longer fit to hold the tools on this project, because you have clearly abused your authority as an admin. You were not elected to Arbcom, and this is obviously for very good reason, so you are not able to act unilaterally in declaring that Arbitration sanctions are no longer valid. (although there is hope for you yet) On this project, you declaring that an Arbitration sanction is no longer valid, carries no more weight than if I as an editor were to declare the same thing. Unfortunately, being the "star" of the The Sandstein Show has all but gone to your head, and you know what they say about abuse and "authority"; that AE request is proof of that. That you do not see that just makes it worse.

You were clearly asked on multiple occasions to simply delay any decision at the AE request so that a request for clarification could be obtained from the Arbcom. This has been done on numerous occasions in the past; numerous times by yourself. That request could then be dealt with after the clarification was gained. However, you decided to nullify their decision entirely without clarification, and then threw it back in my face that I could do that after you did as you please. If that AE request were an episode of The Sandstein Show I would be named in the credits as "(Now blocked) Guy who dared question the shows star".

You can also cease thinking that you will use the tools any further on myself. I really can not believe how arrogant you are. I have already told you that I will be going to Arbcom to lodge a case against you for abuse of your admin authority and tools. And I am only doing this because you have clearly acted like Giano says you have, and you have refused to listen to objections over your actions, and you continue to balls up your self-appointed role as Misplaced Pages Chief of Police, and in doing so, you are now clearly giving us enough doubt to believe that you have purposely gamed the system at that AE request in order to dismiss valid complaints against an editor purely because it is I who did it. Russavia (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Question to Sandstein re: my appeal

Sandstein, can you please tell me if you have read User:Russavia/Appeal up to, and including, the section "WGFinley’s block extension and revocation of talk page access". I was informed by the Arbcom that it was in the authority of individual admins at AE to use valid sanctions as they saw fit. But I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts about what I wrote in this appeal, and relate it to what has happened at the latest AE report. I know what it says, we all know what it says; I want to know if you know what it says. This will obviously be used as evidence at your Arbcom case. Russavia (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not previously aware of this material. I don't see how these e-mails, apparently from January and February 2013, are relevant to the sanctions I made you subject to for your more recent actions. So I don't see why I should read these walls of text or or respond to them. But I note that you directing others to post them on Misplaced Pages probably also violates your interaction and/or topic ban, because they are not now used (or necessary, as far as I can tell) for any current dispute resolution purpose.  Sandstein  00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be genuinely confused here Sandstein. I'm not sure why though that would be, because everyone reading this talk page knows what happened, and is happening. Would you like another opportunity to comment Sandstein? Russavia (talk) 16:20, 31 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)

I was also thinking of your edits to Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 March 25#File:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company logo.jpg. I'm not sure if you noticed the country of the logo when you commented there. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good advice

Hi Russavia! Cool down, please. Go for a walk, do some gardening, drink a cup of tea or whatever to put your mind on something else. Do not edit (respect your block) and do not think about Misplaced Pages and wikipedians. Leave it as it is. Forgive and forget. Life is not always fair, so accept it. Look around at birds and the bees and soon you will discover that life is so much more than Misplaced Pages. Have a break from editing here. You are still wanted at Commons and your deeds there are appreciated. Do what you are good at: uploading valuable images, illustrating articles, improving existing illustrations in the articles and helping new editors to make contributions at Commons. Passing time is the best medicine and cure all wounds. --Seleucidis (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I second this advice. I've been blocked too twice when I clearly was right in the matter, but broke formal rules. Well, what can I do. Hope you'll return once two weeks are gone. Take a break in the meantime, they might have just as well blocked you for another year (or two years), but it was 2 weeks this time. See ya! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, believe it or not I am actually cool...very cool. I am however very disgusted in the way that Sandstein acted, and is still acting, in relation to this mess and the community is allowing him to get away with it. I will keep editing of course, and I will not be letting the trolls (even the admin ones) get to me. If I do, then I lose, we all lose, and this project is too important for it (or at least it used to be...prove me wrong) Russavia (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather think Sandstein has allowed himself to be swayed by anons and other disreputables, and clearly has forgotten that you were very much the innocent victim in the Eastern European Mailing List scandal - and it was a true scandal and a very badly handled scandal. I'm afraid the person most damaged by this latest salvo from that quarter is Sandstein - not you. Sooner or later (trust me on this), the community will tire of Sandstein strutting around the site and imposing these Draconian blocks. All through history (in real life and Misplaced Pages) people like him always come to very unpleasant ends, but until that happy day - the likes of you, will just have to sit your blocks out and wait for the sheep to baaah in a different direction - and I promise you that before long that is exactly what they will do.  Giano  09:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the case Giano. Yes, I was the victim of the EEML. Do you think the EEML is still in operation? Would you like to ask the EEML editors the simple question if the EEML is still in operation? If so, who is a member? And if not, when did it disband? They want to put the EEML days behind them on this project, and if it is no longer in operation, then the community, myself included, would be happy to do so. Then if required, the behaviour of individual editors can be looked at without tarring all editors with a brush which is no longer valid. In relation to Sandstein's problems, unfortunately, ultimately this is now of his own doing. Russavia (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's still in operation - no point asking, only a fool (or the Arbcom) would believe them even if they answered. They should never have been allowed back, under any name, form or IP. They were a disgrace. You really ought to post a link to the Arcom case about it prominently here because many of the admins and editors currently opining were not here when that all happened. You forget that Misplaced Pages has the memory span of gnat.  Giano  10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More images

• Jackie Kashian + {{commonscat|Jackie Kashian}}
• City_Palace,_Jaipur#Mubarak_Mahal
• Hawa Mahal
• Dayton International Airport
• Chrysaora pacifica
• Boondall Wetlands + {{commonscat|Boondall Wetlands}}
• 1982 Commonwealth Games

Help needed

• This photo was taken in or around Longsheng Rice Terrace, in a village called Tiantouzhai. Does anyone know which ethnic group this woman belongs? Could she be Hmong? Or another sub-group of the Miao people? Or perhaps she is Yao? Any help in working this out would be great.