→March 2018: Comment |
Capitals00 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
::::::::Sounds really true. Thanks — [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV#top|talk]]) 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
::::::::Sounds really true. Thanks — [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV#top|talk]]) 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Despite the time span of the account, MapSGV still appears to be a newish user trying to get his feet wet. The personal attacks do not seem so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block. I recommend reconsidering. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
:::::: Despite the time span of the account, MapSGV still appears to be a newish user trying to get his feet wet. The personal attacks do not seem so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block. I recommend reconsidering. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
Even if we forget that Elektricity is under an SPI investigation and is a [[WP:DUCK]] account of a topic banned disruptive editor, all I can see is that Elektricity was nitpicking diffs by spamming the word "personal attacks", only to get rid of MapSGV from the articles where he wikihounded him and failed to get his POV accepted after violating copyrights, violating 4RR, misrepresenting sources, forum shopping[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gyan_Publishing_a_reliable_source_for_information_on_Tourism_in_India], and making personal attacks.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=prev&oldid=828034654] Such disruption is impossible to ignore, and since MapSGV was defending Wikipedia against such disruption, I really don't see any merit in the block unless rest of the offending users had been also blocked for the same duration because WP:ARE is indeed the place where conduct is not limited with the user who was reported. See this boomerang as the latest example.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=827791231&oldid=827790852] |
|||
Also given the comments by Raymond3023 on WP:AN,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=828376320] it seems that this account always engages in Wikihounding someone, then edit warring with them and ultimately filing spurious report to get rid of the editor. By entertaining such frivolous complaints we are only encouraging editors to misuse noticeboards. In the light of this all discussion, I would instead ask {{ping|Sandstein}} to overturn the block as incorrect. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==WP:AN: Block for review== |
==WP:AN: Block for review== |
Revision as of 08:00, 2 March 2018
Welcome!
|
MapSGV, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
![]() |
Hi MapSGV!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) |
List of wars involving Libya
Please quit vandalising this article with claims contradicting the main articles. If you seriously believe that Idi Amin won the Uganda-Tanzania War, please raise this claim on the relevant discussion page rather than messing up the list. The same goes for the Libyan-Egyptian War and the Chadian-Libyan Conflict. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Meant to correct only the Libyan–Egyptian War, which was not won by either. MapSGV (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Egypt repelled the Libyan invasion, and furthermore seized Libyan territory. Please see the discussion page. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
ARBIPA
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.About that move you've made
Look on this website and tell me that it's still known as "Concord Bicycle Music". King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:42 EDT
- WP:CPMOVE. Ask for a page move, because histories of the article are preserved to minimize copyright issues. Cut paste moves are discouraged. — MapSGV (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Since when?? I couldn't move the page days ago since the article already existed. Have you ever tried moving the article yourself?? And perhaps checking this website too. King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:49 EDT
- Only admins can do it. Try Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests, but until then revert your cut paste moves because they violate copyrights, otherwise I will. — MapSGV (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I said "when", not "what". King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:55 EDT
- You still haven't answered my question. "When" and "what" are two different things. And someone had already started a post in the talk page about the rename a while back where I got the link from. February 28, 2018 20:11 EDT
- I have described further on your talk page. — MapSGV (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, again. I said "I couldn't move the page days ago since the article already existed." I know I said that. February 28, 2018 20:23 EDT
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests is where you need to add your request. — MapSGV (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, again. I said "I couldn't move the page days ago since the article already existed." I know I said that. February 28, 2018 20:23 EDT
- I have described further on your talk page. — MapSGV (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered my question. "When" and "what" are two different things. And someone had already started a post in the talk page about the rename a while back where I got the link from. February 28, 2018 20:11 EDT
- I said "when", not "what". King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:55 EDT
- Only admins can do it. Try Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests, but until then revert your cut paste moves because they violate copyrights, otherwise I will. — MapSGV (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Since when?? I couldn't move the page days ago since the article already existed. Have you ever tried moving the article yourself?? And perhaps checking this website too. King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:49 EDT
Your edits at Tourism
You are not allowed to edit my RFC. Elektricity (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are a sock but. MapSGV (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
MapSGV you should take such accusations to the SPI, I am sure an admin will check my IP and remove your concerns. Other than that, you should stop personal attacks. Elektricity (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You plan to disrupt Wikipedia until you are blocked? Aren't you done of disrupting Wikipedia for so many years already? Shame on you. — MapSGV (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration
Due to your personal attacks and hostile behavior I have had to create an Arbitration request against you. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Elektricity (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Read my above comment. MapSGV 19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Sandstein 22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)See this AE thread. This is a normal block, not an AE block. But if the user is unblocked, I anticipate imposing an AE topic ban. Sandstein 22:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Would you like to point out diffs of "harassment" because I am the only one who is being harassed with false accusations of sock puppetry so far. — MapSGV (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Can I have my block appealed at ANI if I write an unblock request? — MapSGV (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)|
- No. This is a regular block imposed by a single admin. Another admin will read your appeal and decide what to do. --NeilN talk to me 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: I think MapSGV is talking about having his block reviewed in ANI, given the many problems with the block. This happens often. Though I believe that sitting out the block until the SPI would be fine but in the same time I don't see a reason why he had to be indeffed even if the filer is not a a sock. Maybe MapSGV can decide. Lorstaking (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes I need my block reviewed in ANI because backlog of unblock requests seems too big and I am confident that I was blocked for no reason. — MapSGV (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Lorstaking: Appeals are not handled at ANI. If you think Sandstein blocked inappropriately then you can raise it at WP:AN. --NeilN talk to me 03:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I will wait for a few hours and if Sandstein responds then it will depend on his reply whether the block should be up for review on AN or not. Maybe he saw something that none of us have, but I really doubt. Lorstaking (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: I think MapSGV is talking about having his block reviewed in ANI, given the many problems with the block. This happens often. Though I believe that sitting out the block until the SPI would be fine but in the same time I don't see a reason why he had to be indeffed even if the filer is not a a sock. Maybe MapSGV can decide. Lorstaking (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
MapSGV (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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.
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=Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed. Sandstein has not provided any diffs or evidence of the misconduct and he seems to be holding a view that if editors have given up editing for years, then they should not reactivate their account given his own statement, "''MapSGV has made only 223 edits so far, which of course raises socking questions''", as justification of harassment that I have faced. He is clearly saying that editors are not allowed to be competent in Wikipedia with this much edit count, even though I am editing for 4 years. - [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV#top|talk]]) |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=Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed. Sandstein has not provided any diffs or evidence of the misconduct and he seems to be holding a view that if editors have given up editing for years, then they should not reactivate their account given his own statement, "''MapSGV has made only 223 edits so far, which of course raises socking questions''", as justification of harassment that I have faced. He is clearly saying that editors are not allowed to be competent in Wikipedia with this much edit count, even though I am editing for 4 years. - [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV#top|talk]]) |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=Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed. Sandstein has not provided any diffs or evidence of the misconduct and he seems to be holding a view that if editors have given up editing for years, then they should not reactivate their account given his own statement, "''MapSGV has made only 223 edits so far, which of course raises socking questions''", as justification of harassment that I have faced. He is clearly saying that editors are not allowed to be competent in Wikipedia with this much edit count, even though I am editing for 4 years. - [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV#top|talk]]) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Sandstein you clearly acted on a spurious report filed by an obvious sock puppet in place of treating it as spurious or blocking the filer as a sock. Are you really encouraging people not to return to Wikipedia after they have quit for sometime or act competent? User in question was dealing with a blatant wikihounding sock puppet of a topic ban evading editor. Why you didn't sanctioned the offending users for their incompetence and article disruption while singled out MapSGV who made fair criticism of incompetence that prevailed around him? The reported diffs were nothing but responses to personal attacks made on him and none of his statements constituted even a single "personal attack" let alone "attempting to harass" users as you are spuriously putting. And no, we dont sanction competent editors for disruptive incompetent editors. Lorstaking (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Seems excessive, don't you think? Might you reconsider the duration?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: As you say, perhaps. But I've never reversed another admin w/o discussion, and I think discussion is warranted. Thoughts?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: The first step is usually discussion with the blocking admin (there's an unblock on hold template for that) but this is already at WP:AN. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: As you say, perhaps. But I've never reversed another admin w/o discussion, and I think discussion is warranted. Thoughts?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm..The block is not as worse as the AN thread made it look like.
- @Sandstein:, despite quasi-agreeing with the signal-to-noise ratio, I will ask you to reconsider the duration of the block (~ 1 week looks okay to me) unless and until MapSVG chooses to refrain from casting random aspersions/PAs on the motives of other users and promises to utilize SPI as the place to discuss socking-activities, rather than the article t/p.~ Winged BladesGodric 05:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is better to report personal attacks than replying them. But from Sandstein comment you can figure that he believes it's alright to call someone a sock puppet because they have low edit count but they are aware of Wikipedia guidelines, it seems that he would have never acted if I had reported those personal attacks in first place. He is clearly saying that it's fine for others to call me a sock and degrade the quality of arguments but I can't say anything even if next one is a blatant sock. — MapSGV (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm..The socking-stuff is not quite so simple as segregating into black and white.My experience in ARBIPA is both the warring factions of editor(s) that usually shows up at these pages And, I emphasise the word faction somehow thinks every other editor opposing him is a sock, with the utmost confidence and vigor.And, if you're offended by Sandstein's comment about your edit count, you ought to remember the old saying--People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others.~ Winged BladesGodric 06:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ouch. I know you are angry, but please stop deepening the hole.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- You both seem correct and I totally agreed. On ARE, it seems that conduct of all parties is observed, but I was just singled out. I said above that it was better to report the false allegations than replying them, and in addition to that I was just casting my doubt if Sandstein would have taken any action, given his comments. That's all. This all could've been done without any blocking or warning as well. — MapSGV (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- All that being said, I agree that the indef was way too harsh, esp. in light of behavior by other editors, who might have provoked the responses.And, I think you would not have much problems in seeking an immediate unblock, if you choose to resolve content-disputes through the ladder of dispute resolution, in future, rather than branding opposing editors as socks, agenda-pushers etc, at the article-t/p.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 06:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds really true. Thanks — MapSGV (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Despite the time span of the account, MapSGV still appears to be a newish user trying to get his feet wet. The personal attacks do not seem so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block. I recommend reconsidering. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- All that being said, I agree that the indef was way too harsh, esp. in light of behavior by other editors, who might have provoked the responses.And, I think you would not have much problems in seeking an immediate unblock, if you choose to resolve content-disputes through the ladder of dispute resolution, in future, rather than branding opposing editors as socks, agenda-pushers etc, at the article-t/p.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 06:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- You both seem correct and I totally agreed. On ARE, it seems that conduct of all parties is observed, but I was just singled out. I said above that it was better to report the false allegations than replying them, and in addition to that I was just casting my doubt if Sandstein would have taken any action, given his comments. That's all. This all could've been done without any blocking or warning as well. — MapSGV (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is better to report personal attacks than replying them. But from Sandstein comment you can figure that he believes it's alright to call someone a sock puppet because they have low edit count but they are aware of Wikipedia guidelines, it seems that he would have never acted if I had reported those personal attacks in first place. He is clearly saying that it's fine for others to call me a sock and degrade the quality of arguments but I can't say anything even if next one is a blatant sock. — MapSGV (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if we forget that Elektricity is under an SPI investigation and is a WP:DUCK account of a topic banned disruptive editor, all I can see is that Elektricity was nitpicking diffs by spamming the word "personal attacks", only to get rid of MapSGV from the articles where he wikihounded him and failed to get his POV accepted after violating copyrights, violating 4RR, misrepresenting sources, forum shopping[1], and making personal attacks.[2] Such disruption is impossible to ignore, and since MapSGV was defending Wikipedia against such disruption, I really don't see any merit in the block unless rest of the offending users had been also blocked for the same duration because WP:ARE is indeed the place where conduct is not limited with the user who was reported. See this boomerang as the latest example.[3]
Also given the comments by Raymond3023 on WP:AN,[4] it seems that this account always engages in Wikihounding someone, then edit warring with them and ultimately filing spurious report to get rid of the editor. By entertaining such frivolous complaints we are only encouraging editors to misuse noticeboards. In the light of this all discussion, I would instead ask @Sandstein: to overturn the block as incorrect. Capitals00 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:AN: Block for review
Per the discussion here, I have opened a thread on WP:AN, here is the link of the thread that involves you. Lorstaking (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)