User talk:Kirill Lokshin
|
Archives |
| I am open to recall as an administrator. I do not place any restrictions on the petitioners beyond the standard ones found here; however, I reserve the right to disregard any petition that is unrelated to my use of administrative tools or my behavior as an administrator. | |
New articles
Hey Kirill, long time, no talk to! I have written and posted four new articles which fall in the military history purview: Buffalo hump about the real life Comanche war chief who led the Great Raid of 1840 which was in revenge for the Council House Fight and included the Battle of Plum Creek. You will get a laugh out of this. My grandson had to do a project for American History on the Texas Republic (which we need a separate page for, I think) and found to his dismay that there were no wikipedia articles on many of the famous battles, and events in military history. I decided to rectify that, and am doing so. If you get a chance, please review them, and let me know what you think! I worked about six weeks getting ready, reading exhaustively! old windy bear 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
REQUEST for arbitration in the WORKFORALL case
Dear Arbitre,
An original request for arbitration was initiated by WorkForAll on June 8, 2007. The request was almost immediately vandalised and erased form this arbitration request page even before an arbiter could give his advise. The same request was again vandalised today . Therefore we bring the request to your attention on Your talk page, and ask You to consider the case.
WORKFORALL.NET versus REQUESTION
Involved parties
- -User:Bully-Buster-007 and their solicitors User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech representing the think tank “Work and wealth for all” in Brussels (Belgium)
- versus
- -User:Requestion and his conspirers User:BozMo, User:Femco, User:A. B. all members of a group of self-declared spam fighters
WorkForAll comments being systematically blanked on their talk pages, other parties in the dispute were not yet informed of this request.
Statement by WorkForAll.net
Workforall.net is a respected think tank in Brussels, involving economists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They publish scientific research as well as economic essays for a wider public. WorkForAll regularly contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 with articles and links under economic titles covered by their research. WWFA staff operate from different IP's in Belgium. During present discussion they created an account Bully Buster 007.
-
End April spam project member User:Requestion systematically blanked WWFA contributions and links without gaining consent. Early Mai WWFA complained and opened a thread "Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction" on Requestion's talk page. Early in the debate WWFA agreed that contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that some links were disputable. They excused, and proposed six times to reach consensus where the contributions were appropriate and where not. Although unsolicited third parties requested reversal of blankings, Requestion dismissed a consensus, providing as sole justification for giving all WWFA contributions the qualification "spam" the mere number of their contributions.
-
During the debate WWFA did not attempt to add new contributions, nor committed deliberate “offences" other than disputing Requestion's blankings. Still WorkForAll got blocked and blacklisted during the debate obviously as punitive and not as preventive measures. Being wrongfully blocked, WorkForAll appointed The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech to defend their interests. They were also blocked, and since then Requestion and his conspirers made further debate impossible by systematically blanking and blocking WorkForAll comments.
-
WorkForAll requests reversal of the blocking and blacklisting because blocking and blacklisting were based on disputable accusations of spam and because the modus operandi of Requestion and the spam project's are illegitimate:
- Requestion fails to provide justification for his massive blankings. According to a universal judicial principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam squad should not be interpreting a general and suggestive WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" is most explicit, affirmative and absolute in inviting to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summarized in an article.
- their editing procedure constitutes qualified vandalism as they systematically blank established and amended content without gaining consent .
- Their systematic blankings on talk pages disturb debates and constitute qualified vandalism
- Some spam project members being self declared communists selectively censor content contrary to their ideology and disturb neutrality.
- Their qualified intimidation is incompatible with 5 Pilars and cause grief to many bona fide contributors. Some of their methods constitute qualified criminal behavior as to common law:
- Spreading viruses through the Sandbox
- Deliberate misconduct to inflict maximal damage to the reputation of other users: After repeated formal warnings they continue to spread (disputable) accusations over Wikipedia, with the deliberate intent to fool search engines, spreading flase accusations over the internet and to ruin their victim's reputation.
- Disclosure of WP user's name and address with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents and to have their victim’s name associated worldwide with spamming or wrongful activities constitutes a qualified assault on WP user's privacy
As one of the arbitrators who has already voted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision, and in particular in support of Summary deletion of BLPs, I wanted to ask if you were aware of Wikipedia:BLP Admin (a rejected proposal), and the discussions on its talk page? Do you think that rejected proposal is relevant to the proposed principle? I've also asked FloNight, the other arbitrator who had voted as of the time of writing, but as she is away on wikibreak, I was wondering if you would be able to draw that rejected proposal to the attention of the other active arbitrators (I left I note on the talk page, but I don't know how often they read that). Thanks. Carcharoth 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to bug you again, but I've also brought up the idea of courtesy blanking on the talk page. Please see the detailed proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision#BLP blanking. Again, I'm not sure if you ar the other arbitrators read that talk page. If you don't have time, or feel you have said all you can, I be grateful if you could find the time to say that. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. It is reassuring to know that arbitrators do watch the talk pages. Just a few points of clarification re: Wikipedia:BLP Admin. I'm very much against that proposal, as indeed was the community, which is why it was marked as rejected. My fear is that this sort of ArbCom precedent (and though many people think ArbCom shouldn't set policy, they do seem to be strongly guiding it), may lead (possibly inadvertently) to that sort of situation arising. I suspect that not all admins will want to get involved in BLP deletions, and some may be strongly discouraged if they show poor judgement, so what we will end up with is a de facto pool of self-appointed BLP Admins, which is fine as long as they are responsible and there are a few checks and balances in place. But quite how that situation would look when WP:BLP Admins has been marked as rejected, well, it would look a bit silly. I also think that blanking allows non-admins to be more involved in the process. Frankly, there are some long-term non-admin editors whose judgement I would trust more than some admins. On a side-note, I also wish Jeff's remedy had been less draconian. He was climbing the Riechstag a bit towards the end, but surely a rewording to make clear that he can still edit articles in non-controversial areas could still be implemented? I've run out of things to say on this now, but I'd like to thank you again for taking the time to respond. Carcharoth 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Question on acceptance vote
Hi Kirill. Back when the case was just Atabek-Hajji Piruz, you voted to "Accept as review of previous case. If the existing sanctions are insufficient to resolve the problem, then we shall have to consider further ones." I merged it with a new request that also had to do with Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs) (formerly Azerbaijani (talk · contribs)), and renamed the combined case as Armenia-Azerbaijan 2; this done per the precedent from the rejection of a case that had to do with TingMing while he was already involved in one. In addition to the fact that some of the parties dislike this new name, there has been an influx of new parties due to the merge. So, I have three questions. Do you think my merge was appropriate, what are your opinions on the naming, and does your vote to accept a review stand, or do you think a whole new case (under whatever name we eventually settle on) is more appropriate due to the additions? Picaroon (Talk) 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
RFAr question
Sorry to bother you with this, but there are several people at Badlydrawnjeff's RFAr that consider the remedy too harsh. In particular, BDJ's editing of articles has never been problematic. Would you consider limiting said remedy to, e.g., deletion discussions on BLP articles, rather than the articles themselves? The remedy as written boils down to banning one of our most prolific editors from a very substantial set of articles, and that seems hardly worthwhile. Yours, >Radiant< 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the impression, but this is not true. If there's some evidence of my blatantly ignoring policy, I'd love to see it someday, but I'd appreciate it if you took a second look at this statement, as I believe it to be patently false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)