User talk:Dolovis

Hi there! This is my talk page, and I do hope that you will leave me a pleasant message to help make my day a bit brighter. I am open to hearing your constructive comments concerning my editing, but like all humans on this planet, I am more likely to take your comments to heart if they are written in a civil and polite tone. If you have come here to harass or bait me, please don't. If I do not want to respond to your message I won't. Don't take it personally. This is my talk page, so I will choose which discussions will continue, and which discussions will not. If you have been asked to stay off my talk page, then I ask that you respect my right to do so, and to refrain from posting your comments here. On a similar note, please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone is saying is no reason to remove it. However, if it is clear and obvious vandalism, then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, that's a neighbour looking out for its community, and I thank you for taking it on. A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor would still be appreciated, and even then, it may be better to just leave me to clean up my own page. You take care now, y'hear? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

John Ramage (ice hockey)

Won't lie, I see no value in redirects such as this. I have started a discussion at RfD on it here Resolute 00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:DGUIDE

Hello Dolovis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:DGUIDE, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R2 only applies to redirects from mainspace. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

RMs on article names

Keep up with the RMs, Dolovis. Even if you do end up getting barred or blocked by the pro-diacritics crowd, atleast you didn't cave in to their 'mother country pride' PoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I be barred or blocked when I am following following established wiki-policy and protocol? I have been told numerous times that RM is the proper way to open a discussion for an article move. It appears to me that there is a double standard. I wish other editors would also use RM for controversial moves. Dolovis (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you shouldn't be barred or blocked. But the pro-dios crowd have had a majority control for quite a few years & will fight tooth & nail to keep that control. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is in no way a majority; just a very vocal and militant minority, several of whom abuse and misrepresent wiki-policy, to further their POV goal. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

They are a stubborn group. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dolovis! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Talkback

Hello, Dolovis. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RM Milan Jurcina

Hi Dolovis:  First, congratulations / thanks re: the Marek Zidlicky RM.  I take it success in these requests is rare of late; always nice to see the right outcome happen.
I recently came across the RM for Milan Jurcina; but I just wanted to give you a quick heads up before I posted there.  In doing a quick check and gathering some facts before posting, I noticed that, as with Zidlicky, all English (and several foreign) press dropped the diacritics; however, in checking the book references, I found that, of the 18 publications with Jurcina, a single English reference listed him as Milan Jurčina in relation to the 2006 Turin Olypics.  Since I do, as I trust you and most of the others seeking to drop incorrect diacritics, want Wikipedia to be correct, the question then becomes what's correct?  And I believe that (generally) English country resident / citizens have the diacritics (properly) dropped by default in our culture.  That said, were it apparent that Zidlicky wanted his name spelled with, and typically spelled his name with diacritics, I'd consider it to be more a question of treating him with simple respect to spell his name according to his wishes (not to be confused with the apparent desire of some to use them even when they aren't appropriate [such as Zidlicky & Jágr, as well as Tomáš Vokoun whom I'll be searching for info on, and likely RM'g, shortly]).  And while I do agree that the title of Jurcina's article should be the most common English spelling (without diacritics), I also think that, given that his name is listed as Milan Jurčina in this single reference, that spelling of his name should be clearly mentioned in the body of his article.  But given what I understand to be the historical outcome of these RMs, I'm sure my mention of any source with diacritics will just make it that much tougher; so I just wanted to make sure you understood that I have no desire to sandbag this RM or the cleaning up of all these mistitled articles.  Anyways, I'll post on Jurcina's talk page a little later, but I wanted you to have a heads-up first.  Cheers til I see you out there again. — Who R you? Talk 22:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(P.S. I posted a big-assed note on my otherwise relatively blank User page to notify of these diacritic related issues, since I wouldn't want to WP:CANVASS again; I've updated it right now with Jurcina's link and, should I find or nominate any others, I'll add them there; should you decide to do the same on your page, great, once I spot it I'll start watching your user page; or alternatively, feel free to update that section of my userpage should you come across any that I don't seem to know about.)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink (submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil (submissions)
3. Yellow Evan (submissions)
4. Miyagawa (submissions)
5. Wizardman (submissions)
6. Casliber (submissions)
7. Resolute (submissions)
8. PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The Featured Article Award: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation

Awarded to Dolovis for participation in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Back atcha

• It has been proposed that Ľubomír Višňovský be renamed and moved. Dolovis (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletionish discussion

There is a deletionish discussion about some of the articles you created at Talk:Dominik Halmosi/AfD discussion. Since the person who initiated the "AfD" failed to notify you, I thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Blatak

Howdy. You should've reverted Djsasso's page move, instead of opening an RM - to revert it. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though BRD is the right thing to do by policy and process, if you remember, the pro-dios crowd piled all over me for performing BRD moves, resulting in a page move ban for me - but not for the instigators who were then able to continue their moves unabated. Dolovis (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dominik Halmosi

Ah, that's got nothing to do with the "AfD" discussion. That page is transcluding Wikipedia:WikiProject English/WPPolicy, which is part of Wikiproject English. That Wikiproject has been sent to MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English, so all its pages have MfD templates on them. The article isn't currently nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 14:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re RM close on Lubomir Visnovsky

Dolovis, clearly you are unhappy with the close decision, but in my opinion the discussion did not result in a clear consensus to move to a new title. Everyone had their own arguments. You firmly believe that your position was policy based and other positions weren't. I am confident that the opposers feel the same way. There are a lot of subtle things going on with Diacritics in WP and its an unresolved issue. Until those subtle issues are resolved at the guideline or policy level, title changes like this are likely to be contentious and unresolvable. I would encourage you to work for resolution at that level instead of fighting battles at the individual article level. Remember, above all WP is for readers. Redirects and article content ensures all possible spellings of a name can be found and read about by an interested reader. For this particular article, the current title does no harm to the encyclopedia. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a controversial issue it is important that Admins follow actual established policy, and not to just blindly accept that the contributing editors "firmly believe" in their positions. I have asked you to explain your written reasons for the “No Consensus” close on the Ľubomír Višňovský RM where you stated “Everyone made a good case based on policy and guidelines”. I am confused by this statement as the RM was nominated based on the established Wikipedia policy of WP:UE, including WP:COMMONNAME, with the Support side providing overwhelming evidence of reliable sources to support the policy-based Requested Move. The Oppose side quoted no established policy at all to oppose the move, instead arguing broad POV concepts of using the “correct” non-English name for biographies. Please enlighten me on exactly what established policy the opposed side based their “good case” upon, because I just don't see it. Dolovis (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussion with an open mind and you'll answer your own question. Enough said. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, My request was for you, Mike Cline, to answer my question. You appear to be unwilling, or more likely, unable to point to an established policy which supports the opposed side. Please explain yourself. Dolovis (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Archives

I've got a Bot, which archives my talkpage for me. An adminsitrator, should be able to set one up for you. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the instructions for the most common archive bot. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, Dolovis. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James Sanford (ice hockey) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Dayton Gems

Russ Sinkewich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Alaska Aces

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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).

Dolovis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no valid reason for this block. No diffs show that improper edits have been made, and no warning was given prior to the block. ANI complaint against me is made by a fanatical pro-diacritics editor, apparently in retaliation for my posting of valid concerns about the continued failure of some editors follow proper WP:RM procedure for controversial moves. Creation of article with non-modified letters for articles titles follows WP:COMMONNAME and the sources used within the articles, and the creation of redirects follows the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT. Dolovis (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See the discussion below. No matter how much you may try to wikilawyer round the issue, you have been editing in a way which achieved an effect essentially similar to that which you used before, and which you were banned from doing. You don't need a new warning for every new way you may come up with of achieving essentially the same effect. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Your request for unblock makes no mention of your past move restrictions. In a discussion at ANI last July, an editor stated "deliberately creating edit histories at the accented titles is an act of bad faith". I have reviewed the following AN thread from October: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Page moves for User:Dolovis. Please comment on whether you have been following the October update of your move restriction. I notice that you are still busy fighting against diacritics here. Your continued active struggle against diacritics certainly makes a charge of disruptive editing plausible. Any claim that you needed a warning before blocking seems ironic given you have been in so much trouble for such a long time, and you give no evidence of having learned any lessons. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never had any editing ban on the creation of redirects. Any redirects which I have made follows all relevant instructions, guidelines, and polices. The only editing restriction placed upon my account is a ban on moving pages concerning diacritics (a restriction which no other editor has been asked to follow). Such moves are controversial and should be discussed at RM, and I have absolutely adhered to my editing restriction without exception. Dolovis (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like you found an ingenious way to avoid the letter of your October ban, while still achieving the same goal. You are defending the result of your original move, back in May 2011, by reverting another editor's change on 1 January. It does not seem that you have ever opened a move request about Tomas Jurco at WP:Requested moves. The October ANI discussion indicates that you had agreed to use RM in the future though I have not yet found the diff where you say that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor on the Tomas Jurco article made an improper cut-and-paste, and I was absolutely correct to undo his edit. Please check the talk page and you will see that Tomas Jurco has already been through RM to settle the article's name. Dolovis (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis' is correct, concerning the Jurco article. There was no consensus to move to the diacritics article & so the editor who switched the article & re-direct to the diacritics form, was definitely in the wrong. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this as well. The gaming of the system seems quite obvious, as Elen explained at ANI, and you pretty well admitted as much in October 2011: "...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)..." Are you not now doing something very similar? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not now doing something very similar. The purpose of my edits is to create redirects which follow the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT, and that is what I have done. The stated reason for this block is Incorrectly redirecting, then editing redirects so cannot be reverted without admin intervention, however there is absolutely nothing incorrect about the redirects that I have made. No warning was given that I was making "incorrect redirects", and no "incorrect redirects" have been made. Dolovis (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

1 single question: Since you are aware that {{R from diacritics}} must be included with the redirect to a non-diacretic article, why did you not include that template when you created the redirects?

These are not moves where you would have to add it after the fact, but brand new pages where the redirect and any and all templates/categories can be added at one time.

- J Greb (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that there is a requirement to add {{R from diacritics}} at the time of creating the redirect. I just went back to the redirect article to add the required template. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"The purpose of my edits is to create redirects which follow the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT, and that is what I have done."

Your words. Your observation that the redirects need this template. Your defense of your actions.

If you know this and you intend to follow through on it, why take an additional edit to meet this?

- J Greb (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The problem is the "editing redirects so cannot be reverted without admin intervention". Given what you clearly know about the system (and your comment I linked to above), why would you think that creating these new redirects in two edits, rather than a single edit, would not look the way it looks? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't give any thought to how it would look. I was just creating the appropriate redirect according to the written instructions. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You knew full well what you were doing. There were no such redirects created in a single edit during that period. All were created in two edits. You took a chance, probably to see if people were still looking. It didn't work. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I repeat. There was no warning that my edits on redirects was incorrect, and there is no editing ban on me creating or editing redirects. So no, I am unaware that I made any incorrect edit on a redirect. Dolovis (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis, right now you're experiencing the typical Wiki block experience of being swamped by admins and editors trying to impress their ideals on you, in a rather hypocritical manner, whilst editors get accused of attacking caged animals, admins are the ring-leaders with the whips. I suggest you don't fight it. They tend to get bored quickly if you don't fight them; they only work when their "collective unity" serves them in these cases, and I'm not afraid to say that they will attempt to bully you and will keep coming in greater numbers to defend each other if you persist in defending yourself. It is the admin culture here, which belittles us all. I expect nothing more than protests against my views, but I care not, it is not the issue here and I am on no ones side. There is simply the matter of your edits, and that is all you need to worry about right now. There is a wrong way and a right way, and the general opinion is that you have edited the wrong way. Your goal is not unreasonable: diacritics are like a foreign language to most native-English speakers, because few English words use them, and Anglicisation means more foreign words are written in standard English letters. Moreso due to technological limitations, keyboard layouts, texting (SMS), etc. Wiki can offer both because of redirections and because its search function will attempt to offer alternative suggestions whether a word uses diacritics or not (entering "dángéróús" in search, will still recommend "dangerous"). Your edits are being seen as controversial because you appear to be only defending one form of wording, and moving articles all over the place to make your point. I haven't looked into your history, can't be arsed.. simply put, the only way you're going to get on and stay on the good of those complaining at ANI and above it to adhere to a neutral POV. Think of it in the same way as the British vs American English debate, which ENGVAR settles. National ties come first, or common name. In many instances what was written first remains the primary article, all others redirect. In the end the result is the same page of content. Only in this case where Americans and Brits are generally aware of alternative spellings, we don't all know diacritics.. there must be dozens, and knowing them doesn't mean we also know how to use them. But we have to accept that if a Czech or Slovak, or whatever nationality, is given a name with such accented letters that we can't ignore them. Even Napoleon is spelled Napoléon by many authors, and he's far greater than any of these people you're getting into bother over. So consider really how trivial the whole discussion is.. a few wiggles and lines over some letters.. and you get a topic ban. Then a weeks block. Believe me, someone will be after your head next. Ain't worth it. You've been on Wiki for nearly 2 years, lots of edits, and your blocklog is too old to be of interest.. so chill. This isn't a one-way street solution, and there's no reason to get yourself banned or indef blocked.. it's not like you changed any ones religion or nationality, right? Could be worse.. so work with the people wanting to represent national ties, and don't create or move anything else that is going to be considered unfaithful to your original topic ban/restriction. Besides, some of my opening comments will ease the flak a bit now! Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Remark

Dolovis is labelling his opponents "diacritic-lovers". If someone was constantly removing f:s, and another person reinstated them, would the latter person then be an "f-lover"? Dolovis's opponents do not "love" diacritics more than other letters, but they are of the opinion that they should not be removed. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Pure BS, just like this block. I don't think I have ever called anyone a "diacritic lover". Show me the diff. Dolovis (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone be a "diacritic lover"? That's like saying someone who uses capitals properly, instead of small case all the time, like some people do, are "caps lovers". It's just the way it is. Another form of written language. Period. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. There is no such thing. So he shouldn't label people as such. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He simply needs to rethink his POV, because it's just silly and irrelevant to Wiki-practices. Consider how many forms of Chinese there are.. do one lot of Chinese suggest that another type is stupid because they have different symbols? Are French 1s and 7s stupid because they have an extra tail or mid-line, which British schools don't teach us to do? SHM.. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, and to express my outrage for this totally inappropriate block, I am not the one who is moving articles - it is the pro-diacritics group who are doing that. The moves I made, which lead to my move ban, were done in accordance with WP:BRD and WP:RETAIN, but those facts are either misrepresented (or conveniently over-looked) by those who want to continue to push their FAIT ACCOMPLI agenda. Dolovis (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If there's anyone using the strategy of WP:FAITACCOMPLI, it's you, Dolovis, jumping at every chance of adding stubs for new Czech and Slovak players, just to be able to establish a "first version" without diacritics, which you then claim should decide whether or not there should be diacritics. Since you're neither Czech nor Slovak, why else would you do it? Part of the strategy is also accusing others for doing exactly that which you yourself are doing, but denying (such as WP:FAITACCOMPLI), as well as deliberately misunderstanding what you're being blocked for: "I have never had any editing ban on the creation of redirects". Of course not. That is obviously not what you are blocked for – and you know it. You're blocked for a second occurrence of gaming the system by editing the redirects in order to make moves over them impossible without the intervention of an admin. Your strategy seems to have backfired, since you are the only one who is getting blocked. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to indefinitely ban your edits

The prior WP:ANI complaint has wandered into a proposed topic-ban while you are blocked and unable to respond to whatever allegations have been made against you. This is the sub-thread at AN/I:

• WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_topic_ban_proposal_for_Dolovis_on_moving.2Fredirecting.2For_otherwise_changing_the_titles_of_diacritic_articles

Some of us other editors will need to copy your replies, from here, back over to that ANI sub-thread. I only just started checking the background about these concerns, but I will add that diacritical letters in some article titles (such as "Dominik Riečický") cannot be handled by some computer browsers (a search for those titles will match only some unaccented letters, not the precise title). Also, Wikipedia needs a lot of help to create and edit article redirects to handle the special accented letters. I cannot believe these proceedings are being conducted against you, but do not worry, I think we can stop this topic-ban, or get it reversed. Happy New Year, anyway. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: there is usually a redirect without the diacritics leading to the article, and if some browsers don't handle the diacritical name, they handle the diacritic-less version, and so the article can be both searched for and found via the redirect. A bot creating diacritic-less redirects from titles with diacritics should be created, if there isn't one already. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that editing a non-diacritic redirect does not edit the text of the actual full article, which some browsers cannot access due to diacritics or accented letters in the article title. For example, some browsers cannot edit article "Dominik_Riečický" by name: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominik_Riečický&action=edit

The accented-c letter "č" can be re-coded as Unicode hex-form "%C4%8D" to allow all browsers to access the article, but most readers would not understand the use of "%C4%8D" and so that violates the concept of WP:Accessibility. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

č is a Croatian character, in the UTF-8 character set. HTML entities: Č = Č and č = č will produce them in the main body text. There's no proof of any browser or reader not being able to read hex URLs, they've been doing it for ages. Given that Wiki is PHP based, a server-side language which has entity encoding and decoding functions to parse URLs, there is no reason to worry about "accessibility". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have citable evidence for such an inaccessible article, or an indication as to the browser(s) affected? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis, you should be putting your attention & energy to North American based non-player hockey articles, like me. Help keep the dios pipe-linked and/or deleted on those articles, thus keeping up the North American-half of WP: HOCKEY's diacritics comporomise. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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).

Dolovis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocks are intended to prevent disruption, and not to be used as a punishment. This is a punitive block. If writing a truthful defense is considered to be “Wiki-lawyering” then Wiki-lawyering should be permitted. I am busy in real life, and so I will not be able to take an active part in this discussion, but I will respond to say that creating valid stub articles for notable athletes is constructive, and my editing has been in full compliance with all of the policies of Wikipedia. I am an English speaking person, and I do not speak or write any other language. The articles I have created are titled according to the sources I have used to create the article. As some of these athletes are born in Europe where non-English spellings are used, redirects have been created (following the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT) if I come across a red line for the same name, but with diacritics.
There are editors on English Wikipedia who are dedicated to moving articles to titles with diacritics, without regard for WP:V or WP:COMMONNAME. It is those same editors who have made and supported these complaints against me. As a result of those complaints I am not even allowed to object to a controversial article move - not by WP:BRD (a core principle[1] which I am banned from using) or even by bringing it to the attention of another Admin (as this has been accused of using a MEAT PUPPET)[2]. The result is that I am being punished for being an English speaking editor who follows the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles (which includes WP:COMMONNAME) and I am being held to a higher standard than other editors on Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A number of points:

• Blocks raised as a result of breaching a ban or gaming the editing style that resulted in a ban are valid. Both are rooted in minimizing the disruption and/or damage those practices cause.
• Creating the stubs has not been an issue.
• The manner in which you created redirects is. You have declined to answer the question as to why you created the redirects in 2 edits - 1 to create the new redirect and a second to add templates. You have repeatedly pointed that the templates need to be there and you are, or should be, fully aware "double editing" redirects is part what resulted in you current indefinite ban on moving articles with diacritics in the title. Using the same technique has been seen, rightly. as an attempt to game the system.
• Yes, the essay WP:BRD is relied on to avoid edit waring. So much that it is considered an de facto guideline for courtesy, civility, co-operation, and dispute resolution. Based on what generated you current ban, it is something you were more than willing to prevent others from using when you were moving diacretic articles and boubled editing the redirects.
• Your continued used of double editing redirects robs all other editors of the option to move pages under WP:BOLD, a guideline in fact. That level of disruption and potential damage to the community and co-operative spirit of Wikipedi cannot be ignored.
• Prior to this block and the related ANI discussion, you were not banned from using WP:RM or civilly raising page moves you disagreed with on AN, ANI, WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, or a neutral, uninvolved editor or admin for review. "Civilly" would be along the lines of "I have noticed these moves (difs) which I disagree with. Due to my being infinitely banded from actually moving these articles to contest the bold move, I'm asking for an uninvolved review of the mover. Thanks."

- J Greb (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2012 (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.

Topic ban enacted

I have closed the AN/I proposal as "enacted." You are indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed. Hopefully when your block expires you can find less divisive areas in which to contribute. 28bytes (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have questions concerning what broadly construed might mean. To be clear, please answer the following questions concerning the editing ban:

1. May I create articles?
2. May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related?
3. May I create redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics?
4. May I move articles which are not diacritic related?
5. May I invoke WP:BRD for articles that are boldly moved other editors?
6. May I request other editors to invoke WP:BRD on my behalf?
7. May I request moves via WP:RM?
8. May I take part in RM discussions?
9. May I edit articles that contain diacritics?

I appreciate your clarification on these questions. Dolovis (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes, you may create articles.
2. Yes, so long as a reasonable person would not view the redirect(s) created as an attempt to skirt the topic ban.
3. No.
4. No, but you may request at WP:RM any article move so long as the move has nothing at all do do with diacritics.
5. No.
6. No.
7. Yes, but only moves that have nothing at all to do with diacritics.
8. Yes, but only to the degree of expressing your support or opposition for a move, with an explanation/reasoning for it. You may not otherwise debate with the other participants of the move discussion, such as by replying to their support or opposition with a rebuttal.
9. Only if you make no changes whatsoever to the diacritics: no adding or removing any, or, in the case of articles that have a mix of uses, changing the balance of the uses to favor one of the uses.

Feel free to request further clarification if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban is limited and can be appealed

Wikid77 here. Your new topic ban for diacritic-titles is limited to the redirects and titles only, so I think you can still edit or create any article (but no diacritic-titles) when your edit-block expires at 17:47, 8 January 2012. The topic-ban could be appealed, typically after 1 month but more likely 3 months, so your current fight has ended for January. The poll showed a count of 19-4, where 4 of us realized that your ban was excessive, or your actions were permitted by current written policies. Hence, I hope you are not too upset with everyone, because several users were able to clearly refute claims against you, despite busy events around the New Years holiday (on 2 January, this year). Many of us have been blocked or topic-banned, so you are in good company with fellow editors who understand when a gang of users go against you, while other editors are dogpiling in "Support" for them. The closing admin typically sides with the larger number of users, rather than try to examine the exact details of policy. After 11 years of Wikipedia, there is still no WP:FAIRNESS concept which would carefully examine if your actions were a significant "danger" to Wikipedia. Instead, as you noted, you are being held to a higher standard than others, because several other people wrote remarks against you. The exact topic-ban resolution, of the ANI report, was decided by admin User:28bytes and logged into project page WP:RESTRICT:

• ANI topic-ban decided: ANI diff-5140, 09:37, 5 January 2012
• Topic-ban log: WP:RESTRICT#Placed by the Wikipedia community

Meanwhile, I hope you will not be bothered by the fact that hundreds of other people will continue to double-edit redirects (while you are banned), and so the diacritic-titles will still be double-edited by numerous other people anyway (despite that being called "gaming" for your case, but not for others). The whole situation would be a farcical cosmic joke if it weren't for people claiming you had done something wrong, to "game the system" which others of us had tried to refute. In fact, a 5th person noted it is the fault of the MediaWiki version 1.18 software that edited-redirects prevent rename-moves by non-admin users. So, in a sense, 5 people stated support for you. On balance, whenever I am misjudged by people, I try to remember that it could be worse: I could be one of those people who do not understand the actual events or refuse to forgive minor mistakes. I was an honors student in college, but I have even had people claim that I was below average in intelligence, so other people's judgment is really a sad situation, all throughout life. Working with committees of other people is a real challenge. At ANI, many users did not even understand that your recent ice-hockey stubs were of excellent quality! Anyway, as you can tell, I could ramble about these topics for days, so I will let you get back to your activities. Thanks for understanding. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• What concerns me is what it means for me to edit or create any article (but no diacritic-titles)? Does this mean I can edit any article, or only those without diacritics? What if I create an article without diacritics which another user then moves to a title with diacritics? Would I then be in violation of the ban? Dolovis (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• In response to your 9 questions: I think it's 1-Yes, 2-No, 3-No, 4-Yes, 5-No, 6-Yes, 7-Yes, 8-Yes & 9-Yes. That's what I'm figuring. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The lack of clarity of this ban is evident by your use of the words "I think", especially for #2 when you think that I may not create any redirects at all. That is not how I interpret the ban. The ban does not prevent me from creating redirects unless they are related to diacritic-titled articles. I would really like to have this point clarified. Dolovis (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Dolovis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The discussion concerning my topic ban has now concluded, and this block has effectively (and conveniently) prevented me from addressing the specifics of the concerns raised, and of defending myself against the false claims and outright lies contained in that discussion. I understand that I am banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". This is my understanding of what the topic ban means:

1. May I create articles? Yes
2. May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related? Yes
3. May I create redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics? Yes
4. May I move articles which are not diacritic related? Yes
5. May I invoke WP:BRD for articles that are boldly moved other editors? No
6. May I request other editors to invoke WP:BRD on my behalf? Yes
7. May I request moves via WP:RM? Yes
8. May I take part in RM discussions? Yes
9. May I edit articles that contain diacritics? Yes

And now that the terms of the topic ban has been clarified, there is no further need of the block to prevent "disruptive editing"; therefore the block is not required and to continue it would be unnecessarily punitive. Dolovis (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The discussion concerning my topic ban has now concluded, and this block has effectively (and conveniently) prevented me from addressing the specifics of the concerns raised, and of defending myself against the false claims and outright lies contained in that discussion. I understand that I am banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". This is my understanding of what the topic ban means: # May I create articles? Yes # May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related? Yes # May I create redirects pointing ''towards'' an article that uses diacritics? Yes # May I move articles which are not diacritic related? Yes # May I invoke [[WP:BRD]] for articles that are boldly moved other editors? No # May I request other editors to invoke [[WP:BRD]] on my behalf? Yes # May I request moves via [[WP:RM]]? Yes # May I take part in RM discussions? Yes # May I edit articles that contain diacritics? Yes :And now that the terms of the topic ban has been clarified, there is no further need of the block to prevent "disruptive editing"; therefore the block is not required and to continue it would be unnecessarily punitive. [[User:Dolovis|Dolovis]] ([[User talk:Dolovis#top|talk]]) 16:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The discussion concerning my topic ban has now concluded, and this block has effectively (and conveniently) prevented me from addressing the specifics of the concerns raised, and of defending myself against the false claims and outright lies contained in that discussion. I understand that I am banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". This is my understanding of what the topic ban means: # May I create articles? Yes # May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related? Yes # May I create redirects pointing ''towards'' an article that uses diacritics? Yes # May I move articles which are not diacritic related? Yes # May I invoke [[WP:BRD]] for articles that are boldly moved other editors? No # May I request other editors to invoke [[WP:BRD]] on my behalf? Yes # May I request moves via [[WP:RM]]? Yes # May I take part in RM discussions? Yes # May I edit articles that contain diacritics? Yes :And now that the terms of the topic ban has been clarified, there is no further need of the block to prevent "disruptive editing"; therefore the block is not required and to continue it would be unnecessarily punitive. [[User:Dolovis|Dolovis]] ([[User talk:Dolovis#top|talk]]) 16:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The discussion concerning my topic ban has now concluded, and this block has effectively (and conveniently) prevented me from addressing the specifics of the concerns raised, and of defending myself against the false claims and outright lies contained in that discussion. I understand that I am banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". This is my understanding of what the topic ban means: # May I create articles? Yes # May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related? Yes # May I create redirects pointing ''towards'' an article that uses diacritics? Yes # May I move articles which are not diacritic related? Yes # May I invoke [[WP:BRD]] for articles that are boldly moved other editors? No # May I request other editors to invoke [[WP:BRD]] on my behalf? Yes # May I request moves via [[WP:RM]]? Yes # May I take part in RM discussions? Yes # May I edit articles that contain diacritics? Yes :And now that the terms of the topic ban has been clarified, there is no further need of the block to prevent "disruptive editing"; therefore the block is not required and to continue it would be unnecessarily punitive. [[User:Dolovis|Dolovis]] ([[User talk:Dolovis#top|talk]]) 16:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}