(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
:::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 [[WP:DR|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.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 19:32, 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 [[WP:DR|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.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 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. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 30 March 2010
Sign (~~~~) before you save.
Socialist Republic of CroatiaHello, 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]). 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.
The sequence of events on the article in question (Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is as follows:
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)
Good to see you backGood 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)
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. 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)
WikiProject Yugoslavia Award
Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav WarsHello 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 CrijevićHello 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 ĐurđevićHello 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 MihailovićReplied on my talk page and more substantially at ANI. EyeSerenetalk 16:22, 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
|