User talk:Russavia/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are back again - fly high

I have brought some vitamins and minerals for you from Commons. Don't forget about them in real life.

Hi!

I was thinking, maybe you can write a new article to make a classy come back? After all 48 DYK entries under your belt sound much better than 47:-) What do you think about writing an article about all aspects of food for passengers and crew on board of air plains? or about something else connected with aviation? To bring you in the mood for writing about aviation - just listen to Airport song. Good luck and take care. I can fly away now:-) --Seleucidis (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help here Seleucidis; the spirit of collaboration is still alive. Russavia (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse

Please re-add the AfD notice that you removed without explanation. The discussion is still on-going. DMacks (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, it appears I edited an old version in error. Russavia (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Zarechnaya (Заречная) (6645993419).jpg

Посмотри, пожалуйста, ru:Википедия:К переименованию/13 апреля 2013#Файл:Zarechnaya (Заречная) (6645993419).jpg → Файл:Leninskaya (Ленинская) (6645993419).jpg --Obersachse (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your topic ban

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

You may want to reply to User talk:Sandstein#Topic ban violation.  Sandstein  18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm, how about NO. I'm not feeding the trolls. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them; much like I am going to do with your request. Russavia (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This is also a topic ban violation -- if you listen to trolls. Because Jackie Kashian has an Armenian name and that may be regarded by some as being covered by Eastern Europe topic bans. God help me if I should edit Kim Kardashian. Only the most combative trolls and/or admins would argue that any of these are topic ban violations, and only the most foolish admin would block for it -- especially an involved admin. Perhaps a CU could be done on the Vodafone Australia IP to see if it ties up with a named editor, and block them instead. Other than that Sandstein, feel free to file an AE report if you so desire; you have the same right to do this as any other involved editor. Apart from that, I've got other things to do, and I request that in future that you don't spoil my talk page and waste my time with absolutely frivolous rubbish like this. Russavia (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2013 (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.

Sandstein's involved block

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your Eastern Europe topic ban on the page Anna Azari,
you have been blocked from editing for 1 month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "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 consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

(Edit conflict with the below) I have made this enforcement block after you declined to address, above, your violation of your topic ban, and did not undo it. Because I am not aware of interacting with you other than in my administrative capacity, and notably not in any conflictual manner that I recall, I do not consider myself involved as described in WP:INVOLVED.  Sandstein  19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, and so Sandstein's abuse continues. Can you please tell me exactly how an article on an ISRAELI diplomat violates an Eastern European topic ban? Explain yourself Sandstein. Russavia (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, go and read Estlandia's comments on your talk page. I look forward to your next inventive block. What a twit lol Russavia (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are subject to an indefinite topic ban from all content "related to the Eastern Europe, broadly construed". The article is about "a former Ambassador of Israel to Russia", who "was born in the Lithuanian SSR", and also "the Ambassador of Israel to Ukraine and Moldova". The article is therefore about a person from, and related to, Eastern Europe. Your editing the article consequently violates your topic ban.  Sandstein  20:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Inventive reasoning for sure. So what's next, I get blocked for 6 months for editing Royal Australian Air Force because Royal_Australian_Air_Force#Service_since_1945 mentions the Soviet Union? LOL Russavia (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It appears that Sandstein unchecked is driving at full force towards a precipice; this can only end one way - the question is when? It seems very strange that the Arbcom seem in no hurry to check this unfortunate situation. The majority of Wikipedia's editors can only speculate as to why that is, and those that do know will yet again be saying "I told you so." One despairs, one really does.  Giano  20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    I look forward to Sandstein finally driving over that precipice, never to be seen again. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, but the problem is going to be for those that go with him.  Giano  20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    That's for them to worry about, not us. Malleus Fatuorum
  • Human sacrifice and arena sports have never been one of my favourite passtimes, one should have some humanity.  Giano  21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    Nobody "dies" here at Wikipedia. The sooner that Sandstein and his "rules are rules" ilk are gone the better. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem is Malleus, only 2 weeks ago Sandstein ignored his "rules are rules" ethos in order to not block an editor who was interaction banned me and whom was participating in a thread started by a Wikipediocracy troll in order to paint me as a racist. And the clowns from Arbcom are honestly asking me how the hell Sandstein isn't involved in this regard. I really don't know who the biggest fool is? Sandstein or the collective that is Arbcom for allowing it to occur. Russavia (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to tell me anything about the odious Sandstein. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Giano, pull up a chair, grab a drink, and make yourself at home
You'll have to excuse me Giano -- Mathsci, Tarc and the like are Wikipediocracy trolls who are obviously laughing their asses off with all sorts of anti-Russavia nonsense at the moment and are using any excuse to continue trolling here. I think it is now clear that they are not welcome here. Also Giano, thank you for removing AGK's comments from my talk page -- I am basically over dealing with Arbcom on these matters; they truly are only interested in making themselves look good and protecting those who are above the law. Russavia (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest Russavia that you go and do what ever it is that people in your part of the world do at this hour; I am quite sure that others will rever these trolls on your behalf - even if I am unable to. let's try ad keep things calm, for tonight at least.  Giano  21:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely mate. So that it is very clear, you have my full permission to deal with my talk page as if it were your own. Mi casa su casa, make yourself at home. There's a fully stocked liquor cabinet if you should feel the need. Russavia (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Lol, I'm just finishing a bottle of this [1] :D Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Noice mate, it's 6:15am here, and I've just started on my 3rd bottle - this is a very noice drop indeed. Vasse Felix 2006 Shiraz. Bottoms up! Russavia (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just remember, Russavia, grave digging is a spectator not a contact sport; there is no need to hand people a shovel when they have brought their own spade.  Giano  06:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As I stated on Sandsteins talk page a few minutes ago I think that this block started as a huge overreaction. Sandstein is obviously using this as justification to impose a block. I frankly don't know what if any interactions they have had with Russavia in the past but it seems as though blocking the user for the above mentioned edits is really pushing the outer limits of the "broadly construed" language...which frankly is pretty typical. That is why I absolutely hate the "broadly construed" language that is used so often in cases. Its ripe for abuse by overzealous admins. I would also add that this case also characterizes the problems I have pointed out with Sandstein's personal mission of being the hatchet man and Arbcom Enforcer. With the AE being a one man show it virtually ensures that he can do whatever he wants unchallenged and Arbcom seems uninterested in putting him in check and the community doesn't have the power. Revoking talk page access is a pretty clear overreach as well to minimize crtique of a questionable action. All in all this is not a very appropriate use of his admin toolkit. Kumioko (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning to others by Administrator Sandstein

There is little point talking to Russavia here at the moment, as he has been officially silenced:

Anyone else failing to follow the Arbcom commands or raising valuable questions and points will similarly have their typing hand similarly severed at the wrist. What an amazing project this is. Presumably, the next penalty is having one's brains bashed in with a public stoning.  Giano  12:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't see why there might be a problem with suggesting that someone else is retarded and should be neutered? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • For me, this is not about Russavia; it's about any editor who finds himself in Russavia's position: I don't see that reverting trolls on one's own talk page after making it quite clear that their presence is unwelcome can be a crime in anyone's book. Neither do I find it hugely startling that someone becomes angry in theses circumstances. Those poking and goading him, were hoping for that reaction and they got it - surprise! surprise! I have thought for sometime that Sandstein is quite ridiculous and extrememly gullible; he constantly allows himself to be engineered and manoeuvred in return for plaudits for the 'brave' actions upon which he thrives. That's rather pathetic really, but Sandstein should beware - I have seen this many times before, an Arbcom approvingly allows one admin too much power in carrying out its wishes and dirty work, and then that admin become too confident and full of himself as he fearlessly struts around Wikipedia in jackboots. Then one day, it all goes horribly wrong for both him and his Arbcom and it always ends in tears. I shall be proven right, but by then it will too late for countless other editors. Wikipedia never learns from its own history.  Giano  15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Your right in almost all respects. Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Russavia to research the link between you and User:Seleucidis. Fram (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPI has been closed with the conclusion that someone was trying to joe job you. Not anything you can be held responsible for of course. User:Seleucidis is indefinitely blocked though. Fram (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And if you had any decency you would apologize for your allegation.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Have you actually read the SPI in full? Fram is quite clear in it that the report was filed because the account is an obvious sockpuppet, but that he is not convinced that Russavia is the sockpuppeteer. He very conspicuously warns the SPI investigators that Russavia may be the victim of a joe job. Given this I don't see what he possibly has to apologize for. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the Checkusers are to be applauded. They have now been able to report Russavia's IP address to whoever it is that controls this particular (seemingly self-governing) section of our community - The Wikipedia Secret Service. I'm quite sure it's not the first time that they have done so, but he may have furtively and wickedly changed his internet supplier, computer or even evasively moved house since their last chance (evil, wicked people like him do this sort of thing all the time) So the check users need to be on top of these things. It also keeps the aforementioned, wicked, evil Russavia in a nervous state if he thinks they may know who he is - psychological warfare is the key here. Although, I'm quite sure they all read Wikipeiocracy so quite why they need to know these things, on the daftest of excuses, is baffling.. Sad old life for some, isn't it?  Giano  18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

List of casinos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_casinos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowgummi (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Four barnstars for good luck!

Hey Russavia!

The four-leaf clover for you

I have added 4 barnstars on your user page:-) Unfortunately I did not manage to put them under your userboxes. I placed them under on your page. Please remove them to the right place, but wait with doing that, till your block is finished. You are not allowed to talk to me about them, because two of the barnstars are of national merit and any comment will be seen as violation of your topic ban. I have explicitly asked administrator Sandstein about it. There is no need to thank me of something like this. You deserve them all, so you have got them. It is a pity, that nobody had noticed it before, that you are a good contributor to Wikipedia and Commons, and you even find time to add a valuable photo to articles on Polish Wikipedia from time to time. I really appreciate that a lot. You know, people tend to notice bad things about somebody much easier than somebody's good deeds. That's life, I am afraid. You can always contact me on WP-PL. Good luck! --Seleucidis (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your ban from interacting with Volunteer Marek, as explained on my talk page,
you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "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 consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

  • Again, Russavia? AGK [•] 14:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes AGK, unfortunately, Sandstein has blocked me yet again. But whilst you are here, I've commented over on Meta in relation to the child protect -- you may want to alert readers on JW's talk page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Child_protection of that, because it will be pointless to work on policy here if the entire WMF community wants the WMF to take that over. You may also wish to alert other projects to its existence as well. You know, I've contacted Sue, Jimmy, Legal and Philippe about the very issues I raised (from a Common's standpoint) after the Beta M case last year on Commons, but never heard anything back (seems to be the standard thing). Russavia (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Meta:User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection is the link for anyone interested. Russavia (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Russavia, my point was actually that if you cannot stop acting in a disruptive or distracting way, your ability to edit will be untenable. If you step out of line again, I will indefinitely block you. Please behave. AGK [•] 10:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Rock on

Thanks for staying unblocked long enough to make this edit with an edit summary that gave me a good chuckle... No Future... rock on! Zad68 03:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being the first person since I've come back not to be threatening or trolling on my talk page lol. Anyway punk monkey looks badass -- the darker right eye (our left when viewing it) gives him an air of authority -- don't mess with punk monkey!! Russavia (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, back off! I'm planning on having a run at taking that article to FA so just saw the image change. Love that monkey! Zad68 13:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR

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

Your removals of content at the Wikipediocracy article here puts you over 3RR. Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted. Have you reverted your re-addition of a copyright violation and advertising from the article? Russavia (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It is neither, and already said so on the article talk page. BTW, that monkey picture is excellent. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Just because you whack a quotation mark around it doesn't mean that 1) it isn't a copyvio or 2) it isn't POV advertorial puffery. But whatever. I'm just going to sit back and watch from here on out -- see who's here to build an encyclopaedia, and who's here to troll this project and engage in bullshit. Russavia (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2013 (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.

Four reverts on Wikipediocracy

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

You seem to have reverted four times now on Wikipediocracy. Perhaps you'd consider self-reverting your last reversion? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you still inserting BLP violations into the article? You know I reverted your re-insertion of a BLP once, and so it doesn't count. 20:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you take it to BLPN rather than edit-warring and mumbling vague incantations about BLP if you're so concerned about it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Nup, I'll just sit back and watch from here on out. It's gonna be fun. Russavia (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2013 (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.

"Obvious Trolling"

Russavia, I'm seeing obvious trolling. I'm seeing members of Wikipediocracy trolling you and I'm seeing you trolling members of Wikipediocracy. I understand that this might be hard for you, but stop responding. You are spending an inordinate amount of time baiting blocked editors and otherwise grave dancing. It's something I don't stand for and if you carry on down this route your indefinite block will be re-instated. So, it looks like you've got a choice - carrot or stick. Carrot, you start getting on with useful stuff on the encyclopedia and step away from Wikipediocracy, broadly construed, I will remove that "involved editor" bit and will consider other ways of improving the situation. Stick, you carry on baiting and whinging and you will be blocked indefinitely very quickly. You are welcome to try and find some middle ground - but I don't see it as likely. WormTT(talk) 10:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. It is disappointing that you have came to me as your first point of call though. Can I ask are you giving the same warning to these members? I have taken that article off my watchlist, and was alerted to the problem by another editor.
Now, WTT, that link has been OS'ed; perhaps Arbcom can deal with this admission it was deliberate on his part. If you deal with that, I will get back to editing. Should see what I've been working on content wise :) Russavia (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm coming to you because I've been watching your editing over the past 10 weeks (that's all, just 10 weeks since you were unblocked by Arbcom) and I'm not impressed with your current record. I'm happy to drop a bucket load of diffs on your page, I've been collecting them. It's time you walked away from this battle. WormTT(talk) 11:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
And I'm not happy with the way in which this project has for a long time allowed trolls to run riot on the project, and for editors to be categorically harassed and bullied. Thank god Commons doesn't have a vile atmosphere like enwp does; this project is broken. But say, since you are here, would you mind protecting my talk page so only established editors can edit it; I will set up a separate talk page where IPs can edit. This will go some way to keep the trolls at bay; don't you think? Russavia (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that. In return, I think it would be a good idea that you stop using the word "troll", which is uncivil at best and a personal attack at worst. It does have a specific use in internet parlance, but given the regularity with which you use it, I'm unsure you fully understand that usage. You suggest that enwp has a vile atmosphere, labelling a large group of people as "trolls" might (just might) be a good example of that. WormTT(talk) 11:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry WTT, I didn't realise the word troll shouldn't be used on this project like that. It's just that I recall it being used against me multiple times on this very project, including by members of the Arbitration Committee, without any real evidence, so I just thought it's the done and acceptable thing on this project; a case of monkey see, monkey do. But now that you have clarified that this absolutely isn't acceptable, know that I have taken your advice on board, and will implement it immediately, and in future I will only refer to people as "good faith editors". There we go, I'm a Wikipedian again. It's good to be back. Thanks for your kind words WTT. :))) Russavia (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks also for protecting my user talk; I'll set up shortly an avenue where good faith IP editors will be able to leave their messages for me. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You're not the only one to say it, that doesn't mean it's fine to say. WormTT(talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you on that; it absolutely doesn't mean it's ok; perhaps in future I will simply point to your essay when it occurs. As I said, I've seen Arbs use such language about me in the past; perhaps we need to pay more attention to our Arbs given that they are supposed to set the example of what is to be expected from the rest of the community. But all too often, even our own Arbs do not set that example that they clearly expect others to follow. User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#On_Ad_hominem is an instance of where a sitting Arb is being asked by myself to explain why they have engaged in argumentam ad hominem, but they clearly refuse to answer it. Monkey see monkey do. Russavia (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I concur with WTT, you should never let that lot get to you. Welcome back BTW!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Википедия несет ответственность за все марихуаны в мире пристрастия!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of places on the State Register of Heritage Places in the City of Albany, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Balgownie, Albany Senior High School and Austin House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Australia-Indonesia relations

Given your extensive work in this type of article, perhaps you could provide some feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia/Peer review/Australia–Indonesia relations. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, will give it a squizz. Russavia (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just published: The AAIB report into BA Airbus G-EUOE's incident at Heathrow last week. [ http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20S3-2013%20G-EUOE.pdf http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20S3-2013%20G-EUOE.pdf]. I'll forget if I don't leave it here for you now. Nick (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Russavia,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Aeroflot Airbus A330 Kustov edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 20, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-06-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification, however due to a boneheaded topic ban, I'm not able to do shit on anything related to this photo. Direct your derision towards User:Sandstein and User:WGFinley; they are the two admins responsible for the boneheadesness. I will, however, advise Sergey that his photo is due to appear on the front page, I am certain he will be very pleased. Russavia (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Burn centers

No I think it should be deleted because it's kinda useless unless you want to make a point on Twitter or Reddit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Youreallycan

Russavia, any chance of you staying off Youreallycan's talk page? He seems keen on staying away from you; perhaps, despite his past misdeeds (the "queer agenda" stuff is pretty abominable, and I said as much during the RfC), you might consider reciprocating...? —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tom, I'll stay off his talk page; I've said what I've had to say now on his talk page and at the AN/U. Russavia (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Russavia, I don't think I know you, or if I do, I must have forgotten: old age is my blessing. I am supporting Rob's unblock, as you may have seen, and I do that knowing full well what the liabilities are. It is true that he has a temper and all that, I know, but I'm probably no better than him. Anyway, the "queer agenda" thing is bothersome to me, and I reckon I missed that when it happened. I suppose you could supply the diffs, or I could find it, and I can read the whole story and the backstory and its backstory, but even without reading all that I am more than willing to accept that he made a grievous error at that time. FWIW, I'm certainly not arguing that he was blocked and banned unfairly, but I am open to second chances (third, fourth: every new chance is a second chance)--I'd want one for myself if it should ever come to that. I have a very low tolerance for homophobia--no, I have no tolerance for homophobia, I have low tolerance for homophobic remarks and I am more than willing to use my little admin tool to deliver the appropriate response should Rob make such a remark again. I trust that he won't, though I understand completely if you don't have that kind of trust. Excuse my babbling on, but I'm babbling to let you know that I am aware of the burden of saying unblock. Thanks, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, thanks for your message. I'll be in touch in the next few days; I've got a lot of stuff that is priority at the moment, but will give you backstory on this so that you are aware of the issue, etc. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Rob's request was closed down quickly. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You're violating 3RR

Moreover, your rollback is futile. Even if the IP user truly belongs to the banned user, even if Jimbo's talk page is semi-protected, I will post the same question on my own behalf. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't give a fuck if I am violating 3RR -- these trolls (sorry WTT, but that's what they are) should not be posting. But anyway Sameboat, pose the question, and at the same time you might want to stop talking shit about myself and other editors. Russavia (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Pricasso

Good job on the draft. Been meaning to write something up for a while (but I am immeasurably lazy). Mind if I pitch in? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. At the moment I would prefer that people not edit the draft in my userspace, however I will get it up into mainspace in the next week, so at that time feel free to jump right in. If you have any specific comments/suggestions on the article you'd like to make feel free to drop me a message here. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, FYI, I made this post at Jimbo's talk page with an idea for a way forward. I have asked NYB, who has said that it would be ok for you to comment here on the idea. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Regards, EdChem (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be embarrassed to go back to an artist who has donated their time and provided free content to this project and to ask them to donate yet more time and free content. And we as a project should be ashamed and embarrassed that this is even an issue. So count me out of that; I am not going to insult a notable artist by insisting that his art is not good enough for us. Russavia (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Special BLP enforcement restriction

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

Am closing further discussion off here, because I've said what I had to say, and I don't see any apologies or retractions coming my way -- this is the norm on English Wikipedia (the most broken of all our projects!) Russavia (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have noted with concern your recent edits relating to Jimmy Wales, which you have continued to make despite being advised that they are inappropriate and are inconsistent with our policy concerning material about living persons. That Jimmy Wales was a founder of Wikipedia does not entitle him to special treatment under the BLP policy, but it does not disqualify him from consideration and decent treatment under that policy either. Read in context of the relevant discussions and of your personal disputes with Jimmy Wales, I have little difficulty in concluding that your conduct is outrageous.

Pursuant to the administrator instructions for special enforcement of the BLP policy, you are hereby indefinitely topic-banned and prohibited from making any edit relating directly or indirectly to Jimmy Wales.

This action is taken in my capacity as an individual administrator. Under the policy, you have the right to appeal the action either to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee. Needless to say, if you appeal to the Committee, I will recuse myself from the discussion. However, although as noted you have the right to make such an appeal, I strongly counsel you not to do so, as this would only compound the effect of the disruption that you have already caused.

I urge the administrators and community on other affected Wikipedia projects to consider taking parallel actions regarding this situation.

This restriction prohibits edits concerning Jimmy Wales as a public figure, as well as posting or discussion of images related to him. The restriction does not prohibit your commenting in a civil fashion in userspace or Wikipedia space on actions that Jimmy Wales may take in his capacities on Wikipedia.

This restriction is without prejudice to any action that any other administrator may take relating to any other conduct you may have engaged in or may engage in in the future. In light of your extensive prior history of problematic editing, I strongly urge you to steer away from unnecessarily creating controversies if you wish to retain your editing privileges on this project.

Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I ask the question again, but this time to you, what disputes with Jimmy? Seeing as you've perused those disputes, can you please clarify which disputes you talk about? Russavia (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, in the interest of Arbcom member transparency, can you please advise whether this has come about as a result of a request by Jimmy himself? Russavia (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to your first question, it is well-known that you have had disagreements with Jimmy Wales concerning his views and actions relating to Commons. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you have been pressing to include, on English Wikipedia and another project, a video that you know Jimmy Wales intently dislikes, in retaliation for his disagreements with you. At a minimum, your behavior leads to the reasonable perception that this is the case, which implicates the recent amendments to the BLP policy, made in light of the Qworty episode and consistent with prior ArbCom decisions, that editors must not post biographical or similar material about an individual motivated by personal disputes with that individual.
In response to your second question, no. The Committee has had no communication from Jimmy Wales concerning this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you please point to the disagreements relating to his actions on Commons? Russavia (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, please unprotect User:Russavia/Pricasso -- there is no need now for this to have continued protection. Russavia (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your first question, I would describe your disagreements with Jimbo Wales as common knowledge, and I find your question to be disingenuous. Regarding your second question, please make this request in the first instance to the administrator who protected the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, if these disagreements are common knowledge, then perhaps you can fill our readers in on what those disagreements are. Russavia (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Same answer as above. If there is anyone who is both interested in the answer and unaware of it, he or she can type "Russavia Jimbo [or Jimmy] Wales" into the Commons search engine and explore the plethora of results. If you are seriously going to deny that you have had longstanding disagreements with Jimmy Wales about various issues on Commons then you are playing games. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so you want me to do your work for you NYB? You stated that you applied this topic ban (which I really don't care about of course) in the context of disagreements I've had with Jimmy on Commons, and that these are Common knowledge, but then you want me to pluck those disagreements out of 101 results of "Russavia wales" in Commons and User space. Can you point specifically to these disagreements; especially those in which I have been "vicious" (using Jimmy's words). Russavia (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
NYB, if I understand you correctly, any editor who edits about anyone on Wikipedia he's ever disagreed with can be hit with a sudden and hard to appeal topic ban. Does this include contributors to, say, List of Wikipedia controversies, many and quite probably most of whom are editing about things they've had some direct involvement in? I understand we don't want COI-motivated revenge editing but Russavia's whole involvement with Jimbo in this article was one figure of a portrait with legend. And I still don't understand why people don't find it perfectly reasonable that Pricasso, when choosing someone to contribute a painting about to Commons, wouldn't have picked the founder of the project of his own volition, simply because it seems like the obvious choice? It seems like either this topic ban is an aberration or you are going to be issuing a whole lot of notices like this. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Every situation is individual and must be assessed on its own merits. I think the desirability of separating Russavia from editing about Jimmy Wales at this point speaks for itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind NYB, the search above does shows us Commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive/2013/1 as the first result, and this is basically my ONLY interaction with Jimmy on Commons. Commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive/2013/3#File:Paul_Myners.jpg_and_File:JCA3_edited-1.jpg and Commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive/2013/3#.22Ample_evidence.E2.80.A6.22 are the follow ups by others to that thread. If one reads it in its entireity, they can see that it was actually Jimmy who was vicious towards myself and others on Commons; all because I refused to turn a blind eye to a potential copyright violation that he uploaded. I was cordial with him, offered him a helping hand to complete Commons:COM:OTRS, and all we got in return from Jimmy was his passive aggressiveness. I said it then, and I say it again, not cool Jimmy, not cool.

So there we have it people, this is my previous viciousness with Jimmy.

I won't mention the time that I defended Jimmy from an onslaught of trolls on Quora at the time of the Kazakh Wikipedia/Tony Blair trolling; a defence which he went out of his way in agreeing with me on.

Yep, Russavia is one vicious son-of-a-bitch. Russavia (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll say, did you hear what he called his mother? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that it's very difficult to have arguments with someone on a project they don't visit. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I lied. There is another interaction with Jimmy on Commons. After this discussion, I welcomed Jimmy back to Commons, and granted him the file mover right to enable him to move files on Commons. I also encouraged Jimmy to pitch in with efforts on Commons, and again extended to him an offer of any help we can offer to him if he hits snags on Commons, given that he isn't really active there. Of course, and again, this is total viciousness on my part. Oh, and there is this request for Jimmy to comment on an issue. Again, a totally vicious interaction on my part.

Tied in with Jimmy's unacceptable (and potentially libellous) accusations of sexual harassment on my part, are we beginning to see who is being vicious, and in the process totally vindictive. NYB, given that your "evidence" does not hold up to scrutiny, I can only suggest that you distance yourself from this episode, and you can start by apologising to me for backing up Jimmy's outrageous and patently false comments about myself, for your personal attacks on myself above, and for using your "admin authority" to protect another "editor" who has basically lied to the community in accusing me of "viciousness" towards himself. I also expect him to take note of this, and to consider that he will only end up embarrassing himself further if he continues to lash out wildly against me., because I will continue to point out how he is wrong, wrong, wrong. Russavia (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2013 (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.

Interesting articles

I'll be adding here a list of interesting articles. Feel free to comment on them as you see fit.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia/Archive_27&oldid=1143277369"