User talk:Ukrained

Archive 1 (Winter 2005-2006) Archive 2 (2006)

Bakharev for ArbComm

Bohdane, wherever you are, you should look here ASAP!AlexPU 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'm back. Thanks for warning although I couldn't vote. Fortunately, he failed, but some Lokshin was elected. We'd better watch his activity. He may appear to be another Sashok (you know what I mean). I hope to be mistaken. Cheers, Ukrained 09:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Kirill is a great editor and a great adition to ArbCom, IMHO.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another intimidation attempt by the Irpen Group

Regarding these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] I would like to remind you that incivil comments and personal attacks are inappropriate, and that similar remarks will result in being blocked. Thank you. Khoikhoi 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: none of the listed diffs shows any uncivil or pejorative terms, or judgements regarding someone's personality. Instead, all those comments and edit summaries reflect my grounded personal opinion on the WP activities of definite users. Trying to prevent me from discussion of the editing or WP elections issues is essentially attempt at INTIMIDATION and CENSORSHIP. Ukrained 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to discuss other users in this manner. Period. Do it again, and you will be blocked. Khoikhoi 20:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of it... "Inappropriate" for whom? I will discuss other users (very specific users for now) in any manner not directly prohibited by the WP rules. Period :)).

By the way, why Mr.Bakharev is not here to tell me these ... things, like he used to do? Is he feeling well? Ukrained 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you chose to completely disregard my warning to you, I've blocked you for 24 hours for this comment, which included:

• Sir, I hope you're not asking a tricky provocative question (as you claim to be not a member of the Irpen Group).
• After all, who knows how many "embedded admins" have you recruited or lobbied (I already know two Russian ones threatening me, and two DYK foreigners that just "look away").

I've already reminded you that you must comment on content (and only content). Making rude remarks about other users is unacceptable. Khoikhoi 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block was purely illegal and politically motivated:

• I was commenting on other users' conduct, not their personality, like THOUSANDS OF OTHER USERS do (billions of links may be provided, like this one. If I'm being blocked, I demand ALL that hundreds of users to be blocked as well (including the admin that arranged this illegal block)
• Admin that blocked me is guided by personal and political motives PURELY: he is a close co-editor and friend of several users which I'm engaged in topical and WP-conduct conflicts with (hundreds of links may be provided to prove their co-operation); after unblocked, I will demand this admin to be stripped of his adminship
• I will question WP:NPA if more attempts of abusing this non-specific rule occurs.

Decline reason:

The block has expired; this request is moot. No opinion on whether or not it was justified. — Sandstein 11:26, 10 March 2007 (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.

My block has expired many hours ago, but I demand it to be backdate-cancelled officially: some admin should make a respective record in my block log. The case will not be closed until the actions of User:Khoikhoi are officially investigated and punished. I mean it. Ukrained 11:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no case to be closed (this is not WP:RfAr); and we do not deal in punishment. The block log is not for retroactive reviews of blocks. If you disagree with the blocking admin's conduct, I recommend following the procedure outlined at WP:DR. Sandstein 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't deal either: both the block must be commented out somewhere official, and the admin that abused his mop should be punished. The case exists and grows, I'm currently looking for appropriate project page to place it. Sandstein, thank you for your help. Ukrained 11:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not technically possible. The only people who can remove a block from the block log are developers, and they have repeatedly stated that they will not do so. And frankly I'd have blocked you as well, your comments at Talk:Soviet partisans were well out of line. Statements like this [6] display a complete lack of acceptance of Wikipedia policy, and represent not only disruption but an incitement to others to disrupt. I suggest that instead of complaining, you learn from the experience. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Guy, thanks for your input. But you seem to misunderstand: this case is not about my behaviour. It's about the policy and user status. If some users are not punished for discussing other users (billions of diffs may be provided), why should I be? If I'm a sort of underprivileged user in this project, I'd like to see clear reasons for that. So, I suggest YOU to support my complaint in some way or another.

And regarding technicality: if we assume that some user blocklogs contain non-reliable info, this should be noted somewhere (how about block log header?). I mean my block log is a source of personal info on my WP activity, so I'd like it to be a reliable and neutral one. Ukrained 13:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are making several errors in reasoning here: That the block was unwarranted, which has not been determined (and frankly your post of And I'd like to repeat my old idea: Ukrainian, Polish and other non-Russian users should formulate their own united version of the page and maintain it together through reverting mechanism. Instead of, or paralleling, discussions with the Irpen Group. shows a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia), and that "some editors who should have been blocked weren't" somehow translates into "so clear my block log" - it does not. Yes, some editors are uncivil, disruptive, and violate policy and are not blocked. Blocking is preventative, not punative. Further, all the administrators here are volunteers and with a ratio of 3257 editors per administrator, even considering the "throw-away" and other non-participatory accounts, that is a huge disparity. There are too many editors and too few administrators for every questionable action to be overseen and handled by an administrator. Further, that is not the goal. The preferred handling of editors' questionable actions is by editors. See dispute resolution. Finally, you stated quite clearly that your goal is not to discuss this matter and further your understanding of why you were blocked, in order to better work with other editors; nor is it to have other administrators review the block to deterime whether the block was warranted; it is to demand an administrator "be stripped of their privileges"[7] which does not give the impression you are interested in what is best for Wikipedia, but in Getting Even. I strongly recommend you read our core policies and attempt to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and how you can avoid running afoul of our policies in the future. A vendetta helps no-one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr.KillerChihuahua, I'm afraid you misinterpreted me. Let me be more clear, my intentions are:

• YES, to discuss by what exact criteria I was blocked, but other user are BEING not
• YES, to have an official investigation of whether my block was warranted
• YES, to inflict Khoikhoi's deadminship when and if his misconduct is established. In my opinion, stripping him of his mop would really be "preventative, not punative". Thanks, Ukrained 13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you misunderstand: this is about your behaviour. You were blocked for reasons which several admins have concluded were reasonable. You have not taken on board any criticisms. You are, in short, showing many of the signs of being a disruptive editor. Others are disruptive? Sure. But that is irrelevant. You were disruptive, you were blocked for it, and you look set to be even more disruptive as a result. From my long experience of similar situations I would say that you have two choices: accept and learn, or leave. The latter will, if you carry on along the usual path in such cases, be outside of your control. This is a statement of fact. We really really do not need people coming to Wikipedia to "right great wrongs". Guy (Help!) 15:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad that these two respected WP editors misunderstand me so far. I want to be safe from blocking for things that other user don't get blocked for; and to be sure that other users DO get blocked for actions similar to what I was blocked for. It's really really :) simple, straight and universal (more universal and important than WP:NPA or whatever). I repeat: If I'm a sort of underprivileged user in this project, I'd like to see clear reasons for that; I want special categories and userboxes, something like "This user is partially deprived of his user rights because he is a Ukrainian nationalist (doesn't like Russia, failed to establish friendly relations with Irpen etc.) :))))) Thanks, Ukrained 10:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Misplaced?) Final no personal attacks warning

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

This concerns this incitement to harrass another user. Just stop this. I know nothing of your problems with Khoikhoi, but this will get you nowhere — only ArbCom can desysop an editor — and will eventually get you indefinitely blocked if you persist in it. Please take heed of this warning and contribute to the encyclopedia instead of picking fights with others. Sandstein 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any disruption or presonal attack there. Any user has a right to discuss behaviour of another user and demand their desysoping. During the 2+ years of me being an admin, several users have suggested, asked for and demanded that I am desysoped - and I never thought that they should be banned for such a suggestion (I asked for their reasons and apology when it was shown I have not abused my admin powers and had community consensus to remain an admin, nothing more). Ukrained has a right to ask for a review of admin's actions (on WP:RFC, WP:AN, and yes, on WP:ARBCOM, too). The matter should start with a lower tier of WP:DR, of course, and IF community consensus is that Koikhoi has done nothing wrong AND Ukrained persists in calling his action unfair and abusive on public forums, then and only then we can consider warning him for disruption and asking for an apology (note that if the community consensus is the other way, then its Kolkhoi who should apologize). Of course, if Ukrained were to be uncivil and make personal attacks and act disruptive in other ways (stalking, etc.) than the situation would warrant quicker warnings and blocks - but I don't see any personal attack in his discussed statement (proposing that a user's behaviour is reviewed with a goal of desyspoing, while not the most productive behaviour, is perfectly acceptable - admins are not above review and being held accountable for their mistakes). PS. Please note I don't take any side in this dispute, and I don't comment on whether Kolkhoi block of Ukrained was right or not; I am just commenting on procedural issue that every user has the right to demand investigation of other's actions and propose solutions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, although any reviews of an user's conduct would have to be through an open process in order to be effective. My warning was about any possible trolling and harrassment of Khoikhoi or Irpen via e-mail. Users remain free, of course, to voice any disagreement with another user's conduct in the public forums you mentioned, short of harrassment or personal attacks. Sandstein 18:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A good open processes to start with include mediation and RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct). Certainly a user should not send offensive emails to others, but I was under the impression Ukrained is simply proposing communication about the issue via email between users interested in gathering evidence for DR. While personally I'd prefer for any Wiki-related communications to be public, this is of course unrealistic and users have a right to discuss anything on any private chanels they create...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus, you interpreted me perfectly well. Mr.Sandstein, I DID mean that AlexPU shouldn't call some one a "troll" on talkpages, unless trolling is officially established. Forgive my confusing wording if any appeared. I'll do my best to mentor Alex despite the fact that he is, in my opinion, the most important editor of Ukraine-related articles. As for E-mailing, I hope that you don't intend to either censor outer PRIVATE correspondence not disclosed to you, or even discuss it. Thanks for your misplaced warning. Ukrained 11:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment from Piotrus

Don't call others trolls or vandals. Don't call group of editor cabals. Don't violate WP:CIVIL even if they do. Instead, start a WP:DR and try to obtain community consensus they are indeed acting negativly, make them apologize and stop such behaviour or make the community force them to do so. If an admin did you wrong, demand a review of individual action at WP:ANI or of complex behaviour via WP:DR again. Finally, if you believe there is a cabal (sigh...) read WP:CABAL: bottom line is, if there is no cabal, you may make one by forcing a group together to defend against you, and if there is one, tread lightly or the cabal will succeed in blocking you unless you follow procedures and don't give them an opening to attack you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Russophobia

It's getting slightly hot there, with the intrusion of our Romanov-flagged friend. More of them to come. Where are you?AlexPU 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Look what we missed:(

Another success of WikiRussification: Talk:Mukachevo.AlexPU 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex, my watchlist counts 893 now, and I just can't looking at it :( I'm afraid we missed more... But keep im mind that nothing is above review (or revert) on WP. Cheers, Ukrained 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ukraine

I thought you would be interested in joining the Ukrainian Wikiproject. Feel free to join. --Boguslav 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My password is being rejected

{{helpme}} Funny thing: I'm unable to log in, the system doesn't recognize my password. Has anyone experienced the same trouble recently?

Regarding the new anti-hacking notices appearing at the logging page, I suspect that my particular account has been hacked to prevent me from editing. It should be noted that many people which I'm in editing conflicts with are IT-experts in their real life. There's a large country famous for its IT-experts (and notoriuos for its hackers). This includes immigrants from that country to the West. You know what (and whom) do I mean...

I requested new password and going to ceize editing until the problem is solved. Ukrained —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.232.147 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

There's more funny things: my Web-mail service in Ukraine is "temporarily unavailable". Just in time when I need it for receiving a new WP password. 195.137.232.147 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be due to the new system set in place to counter simple or easily deductible passwords so users with passwords that were "easy to guess" have their accounts blocked temporarily to prevent hacking ..----Cometstyles 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for responding. Ukrained 09:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is, fortunately, solved. I changed my password through the temporary password procedure. And my external mail service works now. However, I'm slightly dissatisfied with the Wikimedia conduct: if this was a routine order to change my poor password, it wasn't stated exactly and looked like a WP failure or real password hijack. Ukrained 08:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC on your "friend"

Hey Bohdan, people started and RfC on Kuban. So have your say. Maybe this will solve the question of whether you're a friend of this Muscovian... editor let's say, and if he is a "dear" for you or not (as I remember he was asking you that several times :). Seriously, I'm seek and tired of this metrophile troll. The fun ends when looking at his edits to articles, not talkpages.AlexPU 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)