Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 11 August 2010 (→Appeal of your ban on Brews_ohare: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Misplaced comment on AE

Thanks, Sandstein, for your review of Will's post regarding me at Arbitration Enforcement. I see that Will has added a comment in the Results area, which is reserved for uninvolved Admins. Perhaps his comment should be moved. (Note also that Stifle's comment came before I posted my statement.) Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're sick of hearing about this

but if I go to the *^&#$%^ trouble of extensively discussing something with someone (regardless of how much in bad faith I think they're acting), ask for a third opinion, the person who gives his third opinion gives his/her own time to review the situation and provide it, and then both my discussion and the provided third opinion are completely ignored by, guess who, Varsovian, who inserts, again, his own OR, with POV completely opposite to every source included in the article... well, being sick of it is about the right state of mind.

Here is the third opinion "I think the text that Chumchum added (and I just cleaned up a bit) suffices and fulfills WP:LEAD.". Here is the third opinon's provider's edit . Here is Varsovian shamelessly POVing the lead in total disregard of the third opinion (the parade is notable for the LACK of (initial, if he's gonna wikilawyer it) invitation). And this right after getting off a 55 hour block and making disrputive POINT-y edits to the talk page .

Yes. I realize this is a "content dispute" (which is starting to look more and more like an excuse to pass the buck around various admin board (AE, AN/I, WQ alerts all have claimed this) rather confronting this problem). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has violated every single content related guideline Misplaced Pages has. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has consistently engaged in tendentious OR with aim to push a particular POV, despite being warned about it by several uninvolved admins (not to mention editors). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has edit warred with over a dozen different editors over a period of almost one year. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has completely disregarded consensus and outside opinion and persisted in disruptive action, for almost a year. Finally, it is a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has wasted a TREMENDOUS amount of time of a large number of editors and administrators, both on the article and through auxiliary drama (like his filing spurious AE reports against Chumchum).

This simply needs to end. This is a content dispute but I don't see anything in Digwuren discretionary sanctions which precludes applying discretionary sanctions for repeated and tendentious violation of CONTENT policies. It says "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Varsovian has been warned (about half dozen times). Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages by POV pushing and engaging in OR, failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior by ignoring consensus and third opinion (I haven't even gotten around to the persistent incivility). Varsovian has failed to respect the normal editorial process by continually edit warring on the article for the past nine months or so. There's no reason why discretionary sanctions cannot be used here. A topic ban from the article IS THE LEAST that can be done. A full Poland-related topic ban is in fact in order as whenever he leaves the article alone to "hide" from admin scrutiny for awhile he just goes to other Poland related articles and does the same thing with the same negative and disruptive results. And just look at his contributions. 99% of them are Poland related. 99% of that 99% are NEGATIVE (which doesn't mean necessarily revert worthy). He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda. I can throw in some of his own statements as well which show he has problems with Poland and Poles.

If you need all this in form of a AE report let me know. At this point I have trouble seeing why even that would be necessary.radek (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I certainly can't form an opinion or take any action without a very well-reasoned request for arbitration enforcement that contains, dates and explains all diffs that support your contention - and nothing more than that. Statements like "X is a SPA with an obvious POV agenda" are worse than worthless without very convincing diffs to back them up - they are personal attacks and I will certainly sanction you if I see you continue to make such attacks on others unsupported by adequate evidence. But even if you assemble a report that you think is brief and informative enough to be useful to an admin who neither knows nor cares about the history of this dispute, the admin may still conclude that the issue is too complicated for AE (as it now appears, the disputes about this article go way back) and needs a full arbitration case.  Sandstein  19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright.radek (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that Sandstein needs to maintain an equitable stance, and that is fair enough. And to date he has been the most active admin on the article, which has required his patience, and that is commendable. Presumably "a full arbitration case" would be filed at WP:A/R either after or with a WP:RFC/U. That said, there may be a case for a WP:AE here. This edit seems to have ripped out a WP:SECONDARY citation with no good reason other than a WP:OR assertion of 'fact' in the edit summary. That may breach WP:VAN, especially because this SECONDARY content has been fought over before; and worse, there was a seeming attempt to counter the SECONDARY content with WP:PRIMARY content by process of a slow edit war prior to the WP:1RR imposition. Sandstein labelled the 1RR as an attempt to change ways at the article, the question is whether his effort was respected. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Two requests

May I make two requests. Firstly, given that you say that "Statements like "X is a SPA with an obvious POV agenda" are worse than worthless without very convincing diffs to back them up - they are personal attacks and I will certainly sanction you if I see you continue to make such attacks on others unsupported by adequate evidence." and given Radek's remarks in the post which you were replying to ("he has problems with Poland and Poles." , "Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages by POV pushing" and his now struck out comment "He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda."), could you please consider placing Radeksz under a restriction where he is required to provide diffs with any accusations of misconduct?
Secondly, I really am getting tired of the accusations which can easily be interpreted as 'Varsovian is a racist' ("he has problems with Poland and Poles." , a person who 'has problems' with a particular race can easily be viewed as being racist). Saying that I am racist towards Poles is a lie particularly offensive to me given that I choose to live and work in Poland and my partner is Polish, as are her children and the majority of my friends. I note that Anti-Polish sentiment is listed in Category Prejudices, so if Radeksz is not calling me a racist he is at least calling me prejudiced, which is also a personal attack Could you please consider instructing Radeksz not to make such accusations. If you are not willing to make such instruction, could you please direct me to the appropriate board at which to request that Radeksz ceases to accuse me of being anti-Polish (which, as I have outlined above, is tantamount to calling me racist or prejudiced). Varsovian (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already told Radeksz not to do this again, see above. If you believe that additional action is required at this time, which I do not, please see WP:SEEKHELP.

May I also make an observation as long as my talk page seems to have the attention of half of Central/Eastern Europe. You and the editors you seem to be habitually in conflict with come across as the sort of people who tend to end their Misplaced Pages career with an indefinite topic ban or block for engaging in endless petty nationalist POV wars about silly and/or obscure topics (e.g., invitations to WWII victory parades!) and for wasting an enormous amount of the time of administrators and other editors in the process. If I continue to see the same names over and over again on AE, AN3 and here with (mostly unhelpful and overly aggressive) complaints against each other, I will have to consider taking rather drastic measures concerning the whole lot of you.  Sandstein  14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

I request enforcement with regard to the interaction ban placed on Loosmark. With this edit Loosmark re-introduces, in most sections word for word, text which I removed two days ago with this edit. Furthermore, Loosmark's edit contains wording ("the exclusion of all Polish servicemen", "303 squadron was the only Polish unit invited", "the Allies did not want to antagonize Stalin" and "This is considered one of the causes of the feeling of "Western Betrayal" in Poland.") which I specifically discuss and object to on the talk page of the article ().
I also previously removed this same text from the article on 19 July and on 20 July (after Radeksz reinserted it) and I objected to the inclusion of such text on 20 July. Varsovian (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

May I also make a request as regards enforcement of the above? Given what you say above about unhelpful and overly aggressive complaints, I request that you consider, instead of imposing another block, suggesting to Loosmark that he considers self-reverting the edit reported above. Varsovian (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting is not possible now that all are banned from that article. Your request is declined because this is not necessarily a prohibited interaction: Loosmark's reintroduction of that text is not necessarily a reaction to you, but may well also be a reaction to this more recent removal of this content by another editor.  Sandstein  13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A question about all being banned from that article: under the terms of your restriction, of all the editors who have taken part in the edit war at that article only Chumchum7 is free to continue to work on the article. Was that a deliberate decision on your part? Please note that I entirely abide with the decision you make in the post above this one and am not in any way arguing with it. Varsovian (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question. One final question with regard to this topic (if I may): would it be improper/impolite of me to ask Chumchum7 on his talkpage if he intends to continue to edit the article in question now that the other parties in the edit war are banned from editing it? Varsovian (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. I see little point in such a question; you can see for yourself whether they edit that article or not.  Sandstein  14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. That wasn't quite the question I was asking but I did say it would be my last one on the topic so I won't take up any more of your time by re-phrasing it and asking again. Varsovian (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is their any template that would inform potential editors that the article is under sanctions? My question comes from this latest ban you came up with. I am concerned that some editors will frankly be unaware that they are banned from editing the article-since most probably don't read every AE thread, nor the talk page or current list of Digwuren sanctions, and could be blocked only due to their unawarness. So perhaps there is a template that we can add to the article that would warn editors to first check what editing sanctions they are?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is. It's in the edit notice tha appears when you edit the page.  Sandstein  15:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't knew there was such thing. Thank you and have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Sandstein. I'm somewhat distressed by your "Radeksz (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue." This rather paints the picture that I and others somehow need "reminding" of something, that is, there's a need for a preemptive strike against a community of bad faith editors. I trust that is not your intent, but that is very much how I perceive it, as inappropriate editorializing as part of an enforcement decision against a single editor. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of your ban on Brews_ohare

I have implemented an appeal of your ban on Brews_ohare here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)