User talk:Hodja Nasreddin: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comment: cleared |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*This account is no longer active because its owner was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMiyokan outed] and received [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boris_Stomakhin/Evidence#Threats_by_User:ellol death threat] from a Russian supporter of [[Vladimir Putin]], after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boris_Stomakhin/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Biophys a continuous stalking] and other incidents. |
|||
{{semi-retired}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]] |
|||
==Blocked== |
|||
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] {{#if:48 hours|You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''31 hours'''|You have been '''temporarily [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing}} for {{#if:edit warring|'''edit warring'''|[[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make constructive contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. {{#if:yes|<b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> |
|||
::I thought it is common practice not to punish users who made ''two'' reverts in the same article. I saw this numerous times at 3RR. I debated the issues at the article talk page with YMB ''and'' Bobbani. I am really surprised how fast you jumped to the gun (in a couple of minutes!) missing a number of previous reports and not allowing me and YMB to tell anything at all at the 3RR. I am sorry for creating problems. I hope this block will still be reviewed by another administrator? Thank you.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 04:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Biophys has been edit warring recently at [[Russian apartment bombings]] as well, where he made 3 reverts in 24h on 13 September (and more later): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=313476562&oldid=313366472][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=313575124&oldid=313515939][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=313593386&oldid=313582213]. I was thinking of reporting him, but now he is already blocked for edit warring elsewhere, so I won't. This should be taken into account. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 04:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Offliner, and that is why your just started reverting my recent edits in other articles without even talking: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Litvinenko&diff=prev&oldid=314039827]? [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 04:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:What edit warring? Can sb provide the diffs were Biophys broke 3RR? Thanks. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 17:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::One need not break the 3RR rule in order to be blocked for edit warring. [[User:LokiiT|LokiiT]] ([[User talk:LokiiT|talk]]) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::But one needs to demonstrate edit warring. So far I see no diffs presented here, and I two reverts are not edit warring. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Piotrus, I did not broke the rule and made only ''two'' reverts in the article, and I talked a lot with two other users involved. I am afraid that administrator who blocked me was not quite objective. A week ago he did not block PasswordUsername even though he made a clear 3RR violation, but he blocked me in ''two minutes'' after receiving the report. However, it is now very fashionable to blame administrators of everything, so I decided to withdraw my request to review the block as to reduce any tensions. My request to review was standing for nine hours without response by any administrator. I can request to review my block again if you recommend.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
::::I didn't see the unblock request, otherwise I'd have unblocked you. As I said above, I see no grounds to support edit warring. I suggest you file the unblock request again. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You'd better not because you're an involved person in regards to Biophys (not in the edit warring). Favoritism should be avoided.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Involved how? That I've interacted in past does not mean my judgment is biased. But for the record, I'd indeed prefer if somebody else would take the action here. Blocking a user for 2 reverts is too much, I am sure a warning would suffice. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You've been trying to get Biophys of any sanction whenever his name comes up to AN3/AN/I or AE. In the latest rejected ArbCom case on EE, you were construed as an "involved admin" by other peer admins, then you're involved. Many people have been blocked for just "one revert" if they have a long history of tendentiously edit warring or editing in heated and controversial areas. I see no injustice from the block since his another AN3 report on his edit warring just happened not a long ago.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*This block is unjustified, I left my comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:YMB29_.28Result:_Both_blocked.29 here]. --[[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
**The only reason you think it's unjustified is because in the past I didn't block one of your "enemies" who, in your perception, edit warred just as much. But blocks are handled on a case-by-case basis, so perhaps rather than trying to re-dig-up your bitterness over an old conflict you should get back to improving the encyclopedia. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
***Again, I don't believe we have interacted before PU's report, and we have not interacted since until today, so what justification do you have in assuming bad faith in my motives, to the point that you personally attack me here on this talk page. The issue for me is not that you ''"didn't block one of your "enemies""'' as you fallaciously attempt to claim, but the apparent punitive nature of your block against Biophys, given that the only diff in AN3 report was from June. --[[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 00:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
****You're skimming the report and not bothering to look at the article itself, apparently; you're failing to notice a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=296650246&oldid=296561739 revert] on September 15. And, as for your obsession with PU...your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjanag&diff=314223429&oldid=314167711 message you left me] just a few minutes ago is about 10% about Biophys, 90% about PasswordUsername. The fact that you haven't interacted with me in the interim doesn't mean you're not obviously still hung up on this old conflict. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 01:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*****"Obsession with PU"? My message to you on your talk page (to which you implausibly responded by accusing me of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjanag&diff=next&oldid=314223429 following you around]") was a reasonable question in regard to your oddly inconsistent blocking behavior. Are these bad faith accusations against me an attempt to divert attention from the issue of this apparent punitive block against Biophys?. --[[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
******Like I have said many times, the reason things seem "inconsistent" to you is that blocks are handled on a case-by-case basis. When I encounter an AN3 report I respond in the way that is most beneficial for that particular circumstance at that particular time, ''not'' in the way that is going to make User:Martintg happy and be most consistent with the way I treated him and some other guy in the past. Again, if you want consistency, make a suggestion that admins be replaced by bots. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Honestly, I wanted to be unblocked and thought the block was unfair. I thought an uninvolved admin will come and just tell me "yes" or "no". That would be fine. But it was not my intention to create a drama here. I am really thankful to everyone who commented, including the administrator. People, thank you very much for taking good care of me, one way or another![[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=314315215&oldid=314314586 Wow!]. |
|||
==Comment== |
|||
'''Oppose''' because this proposal misses the point. ArbCom asks for a good proposal how to minimize the administrative abuse related to topic bans (the case of William M. Connolley), but this proposal makes the possibility for abuse permanent. Just to clarify, this proposal reminds me instruction by Lenin to comrade Kursky: ''the purpose of our courts is "not to eliminate the terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle"'' (this is not to criticize Sandstein, he is doing great job, and I support most of his decisions). In this proposal to ArbCom we only need to clarify two important questions: (1) under which circumstances user "A" can be banned from editing article "X"?, and (2) what does it mean "an uninvolved administrator"? That was exactly the problem in William M. Connolley case. William acted in a good faith, but he had no clear rules to follow. William thought he was uninvolved, but ArbCom decided he was involved. |
|||
#Question 1. There are several options. User "A" can be banned from editing article "X" if a) he made a 3RR violation in page "X" and was blocked (once or twice?); b) he made uncivil comments (including assumption of good faith) when discussed this page, c) if he "edit warred" in this article, d) if his participation was unhelpful as this administrator believes. I suggest to only use criteria a) and b) because they can be easily used by any administrator, but c) and d) can be used only by an administrator who was uninvolved ''and'' familiar with the subject of the article. And this is highly problematic (see below). |
|||
#Question 2. There are several options. An uninvolved administrator is someone a) who has no conflict with the user; b) who does not edit in the area of content conflict; c) who has no working "relations" with the user, in a good or bad way. This is all highly problematic. If a user or his "friends" actively complained about actions of the said administrator and administrator objected, does it constitute a conflict? Obviously, it does. If the administrator and user argued during an RfC or AfD, does it constitute a conflict? Yes, for many people it does, let's be honest. Can an administrator be involved if this user commented anywhere in his ''favor''? Ridiculous? Not at all, because one of WP administrators recently was considered to be involved when commenting about me, simply because I commented previously in his favor. |
|||
So, I strongly suggest to write a completely different proposal, ''specifically about topic bans'' that limits ourselves to banning only users who (a) made a 3RR violation in page "X" and was blocked for that (maybe a couple of times), or (b) made uncivil comments during the related discussion.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:What are you talking about? [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Discretionary_sanctions Here].[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::BTW, Offliner, I just looked more carefully at the last statement by Russavia at ANI. He said: "''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''". But we all know [[Vladimir Putin|what exactly subject he means]]. Hey, I would rather be out of here.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" |
|||
|- |
|||
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em" | [[File:Artículo bueno.svg|50 px]] |
|||
| style="padding: 0.1em" | |
|||
'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): |
|||
<br><br>[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Autoblock]] #1570157 lifted or expired. |
|||
''Request handled by:'' [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 02:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user={{PAGENAMEE}} active autoblocks] on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small> |
|||
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> |
|||
|} |
|||
Revision as of 15:59, 17 September 2009
- This account is no longer active because its owner was outed and received death threat from a Russian supporter of Vladimir Putin, after a continuous stalking and other incidents.
Please contact me over wikipedia email with any questions.Biophys (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)