User talk:Director

Home   Talk   Contributions   Archives Make yourself at home....

I usually reply to posted messages here, but if the message is important I'll notify you on on your talkpage as well. If I posted a message on your talkpage I will reply there, but feel free to notify me on my talk if you feel it is urgent. I'd prefer it if noone removed content here, but naturally I have no objections if it's just grammar. Please don't revert my edits on this page. Finally: no insults. I can take criticism as much as the next guy, but outright personal attacks will be reverted and reported. Socialist Republic of Croatia Hello, Director. You have new messages at Talk:Socialist Republic of Croatia#Predecessors/Successors. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. March 2010 To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks first. JodyB talk 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2008 decision, the Arbitration Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited 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 community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Director (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Unbelievable. Could this silly block possibly be because of this edit??! Forgive me if some of my outrage becomes apparent in this unblock request, I'll do my best to be brief. I am actually getting banned for no less than one week because I reverted an edit by User:Иван Богданов. The same user who was indeffed a week ago because of his editing (and of course, because he expressed his desire to see another user "SLAUGHTERED LIKE AN OX" among other things [1]). Not only was this one edit part of an attempt to repair articles damaged by the indeffed account uwilling to familiarize itself with WP:CFORK, but was also done some ten days after the conflict had been successfully resolved and the disruptive account blocked. To add to this, my grand total or reverts on the page amounts to three (and I'm talking all time, one, two, three) with the last one apparently causing this "timely intervention" that managed to prevent an already successfully resolved conflict. On top of all this, maximum effort had previously been exerted to explain this situation to the blocking admin (by an uninvolved third party) [2]. Was I expected to "achieve consensus" with an indefinitely blocked user before reverting the damage he was blocked for inflicting? I emphasize that the only other person involved in the problem is unable to edit this website. I've been around for years and (fully understanding WP:EC) I'm proud to say I have just under 24,000 edits on enWiki [3]. Believe it or not, when I edit I always do my best to improve the encyclopaedia and repair articles. I know the "success rate" of unblock requests, and if I were wrong here I would apologize immediately, but this is simply not a fair block in any way. Apparently, nobody is safe with these "liberal" interpretations of ARBMAC decisions on the part of some admins. When I'm able to edit again, I shall do my best to bring this matter to the attention of the community. These sort of actions leave people wondering about the general wisdom of their efforts on this encyclopedia. Decline reason: Arbitration enforcement blocks may not be appealed like this; see WP:AEBLOCK. If the ongoing community discussion about your block produces consensus against it after at least a day of discussion, it will be lifted, or you may request that it be lifted with reference to that consensus.  Sandstein  21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This is also at AN. JodyB talk 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (I would appreaciate it if my post were presented to, or read by, the participants of the relevant discussion at AN) The sequence of events on the article in question (Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is as follows: The user and I entered into a very brief edit-war (he edited, I reverted, he edited again, I reverted again, period). [4] Limited discussion on the issue took place elsewhere. I posted the last comment, it remained unanswered. [5] The other user, the only user actively supporting his edit, was indefinitely blocked for expressing his desire to shoot a third user with an M-80 rifle. [6] I waited for something like 10 days. [7] I reverted his edit. [8] I got blocked for a week. Apparently, I did not act quickly enough to establish consensus - the only account supporting the edit (the same guy who posted it) was blocked too soon. My mistake, it seems. I have to say here: if the blocking admin (who I'm sure really is acting in good faith), felt an RfC on the issue was necessary, I do not see what stopped him from posting it himself, instead of blocking people for not doing what he deemed necessary. The discussion was (and I think still remains) clearly dead, i.e. - concluded. (Please note that No such user supports the merge, and even after all this "hubub" the talkpage is still dead with opposing voices.) Regarding the issue on the whole, well, I was trying to get work done. I think anyone can see that it is very hard to interpret the exchange there as whole-hearted "opposition from the community" (apart from the banned user who, again, I obviously cannot engage in conversation). I discussed the issue, and despite Jody's interpretation, I cannot see how the wording of my posts prevents people from seriously opposing the (frankly very necessary and beneficial) merge. Do I go around asking people to oppose me and discuss so as to avoid getting blocked? How long does one wait? Fellas, if ten days was insufficient then I apologize, I'm a pretty busy guy, but I don't think I'm to blame for not posting an RfC... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) DIREKTOR, I know you think you mergers and redirects were beneficial, maybe so. But the issue here was proceeding in the face of opposition. If you are agreeable to the following, I am prepared to unblock today. This is not a negotiation. If you accept just say so here. Be more aware of the WP:BRD guideline and put it to use whenever conflicts arise, Seek some form of assistance or dispute resolution in the face of persistent conflict, and, Avoid declaring something vandalism in an edit summary when an editorial dispute is underway. I know that you are and have been a productive editor and I would very much like to see you back at work. I know that you do not agree with your block but please understand the importance, especially on these particular pages, of avoiding ongoing conflict. If you are agreeable, just post here and I will unblock. JodyB talk 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I decided to go offline for a while and concentrate on my studies, Jody, I never saw this last post. No hard feelings on my part, I probably wouldn't have done much editing either way with my workload the past few weeks. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Good to see you back Good to see that you have not left wikipedia after that overly harsh block. In the end I had to withdraw myself from the debate because I was so annoyed with JodyB's poorly considered stance. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I'm back, but I can't shake a feeling of apathy regarding the place. To be honest, I'm starting to think Wikipedia might really be too large for its own good, in relation to the relatively small population of editors that is. I understand Jody's actions and I'm not bitter about it, but I am a bit peeved that he managed to block me for a week while FpkCascais is out there removing sources because he personally disapproves of the professor's ethnicity [9]. Thanks for your support, Polar, I'm sure I'll be back out there in no time. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I am beginging to hate sanctions. The normal rules of wikipedia provide plenty enough to block difficult or problem editors. Sanctions seem to be simply putting good editors off the project. There has been a recent case of User:Atmoz in climate change and User:William M. Connolley being blocked again but this time for the very smallest of transgressions imaginable. As with you these people are consensus building wikipedians who try to defend and build wikipedia but fall foul of random admins who think they are doing the right thing but are simply that "random admins" who stumble across the issue and throw warnings and blocks around with no sense of what a block is actually for. I would have loved to have edited wikipedia a few years ago, you may be right it is getting too big. Polargeo (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "I am beginning to hate sanctions".....well, it was time that the "doctor" tasted his own medicine....how many times other wikipedians have been blocked/banned without a real reason because of you, DIREKTOR? I remember -just to name one- the good old user:Luigi28, who happens to be now one of the most respected contributors on it. wiki :) And who knows when you'll have your next block? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Another bitter IP sock. Confirms that you are definitely doing a good job. Polargeo (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Its good to hear from the trolls every once in a while... :) Mr. IP, as you can see, this isn't "my" medicine - I can't block anyone. I just report 'em. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Coordinator elections have opened! Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC) A new sockpuppet of Historičar (talk · contribs) As you've been involved with SPI's for this user before, I thought I'd let you know he has a new sock and there is a new case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar. Do you know if there is any way to get an IP range block/ban for this person? He just doesn't seem to quit with the sockpuppetry. 58.165.69.106 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Admins don't like placing range blocks, especially when an IP uses a wide range. Ask, though, see if its possible. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC) WikiProject Yugoslavia Award File:FPRY Merit Order.jpg The Yugoslavia Order of Merit I, Kebeta (although sometimes seeing things differently), award you with Yugoslavia Order of Merit for your dedication to articles related to Yugoslavia. Kebeta (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC) You have my thanks Kebeta, you've shown that you have the amazing capability to get over my obnoxious character. :) Thanks again --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC) You are most welcome "comrade"! Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars Hello DIREKTOR. I would apreciate your opinion regarding the article: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Greetings! Zdravo druže. Cenio bih tvoje mišljenje povodom članka: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars. Pozdrav! --Mladifilozof (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: House of Crijević Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Crijević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: House of Đurđević Hello DIREKTOR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of House of Đurđević, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a portal, and it seems a reasonable redirect. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Re Draža Mihailović Replied on my talk page and more substantially at ANI. EyeSerenetalk 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Took a break to cool off. Thanks for responding to the ANI post. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Draža Mihailović. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Template:Z9 Thanks Sandstein, I especially like the standard-issue block message. This is what I get when I ask admins for help. Makes me feel stupid to spend so much time here and then get blocked by the community for restoring sourced material. Tell me, what was the point of warning and blocking User:BoDu (something you "concurred" with) for "removing sourced material on Draža Mihailović" and then blocking the guy that restored the sourced material? But never mind, I'm used to this sort of brilliant administration. For the record this is not an unblock request, in fact I honestly think you should extend it. I deserve to be "punished" more severely for my stupidity. You'd think I'd realize by now that enWikipedia is far too large and does not function on the fringe. What does some guy from Switzerland care about these articles? He just makes sure he treats everyone fair and equal - the guy that restored five university publications and their sourced text into the article, and the guy that demolishes the place every now and again out of personal conviction. In fact, lets block the the restoring guy for double the period, just to be sure. After all, he's restored the sources way more times than the other guy demolished the article. Makes perfect sense. I'm sorry I engaged in edit-warring, next time I'll report the matter to the admins... no wait.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I concurred with the block for edit-warring, not for "removing sourced material". The point is that it does not matter whether the text that is being edit-warred over is well-sourced or not (WP:BLP cases excepted), or whether it is in any other way good or bad. Edit warring is wrong in either case. If you are in a content dispute, your choice is not between edit-warring or "reporting the matter to the admins", because admins do not have the authority to adjudicate content disputes. Your choice is between edit-warring (bad) or pursuing dispute resolution (good). In this case you chose to edit-war. Please choose dispute resolution next time, or you may be subject to blocks of increasing duration. (I took your previous block log into account in determining the length of this block.)  Sandstein  19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I am fully aware of WP:DR and I tried it numerous times. Every single time its either 1) nobody responds (most often, 75% of times, particularly if its an obscure article like this one), 2) if someone responds, he/she does not really care about the outcome, and does not help resolve the issue at all 3) even if he/she responds and actually gives a damn, these sort of complex EE issues require at least some back knowledge, now that never happens: you can never, ever get help resolving a dispute from an informed, motivated user. Two people like that would be a miracle. It has not happened in the last 3 years, and I don't think its happening now. ffs Sandstein, I know why you blocked me when you did, but why do you think those involved in Balkans disputes almost never ever even try using DR? I get that every time: "use DR". Its a joke. This is an obscure Balkans article about some guy who's name 99% of Wikipedians can't even pronounce. In short, yes I've heard of WP:DR, and no, I did not avoid using it because I'm too stupid or a belligerent Balkanite, I had a good reason. My two realistic choices are edit war or admin assistance. This isn't my first Balkans dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)