Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:55, 27 May 2012

Croatian translation

Sure I can help you tomorrow :) Vatrena ptica

Thank you Vatrena ptica, that is appreciated. :) russavia (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek translation of Polandball

I can try for a translation not in a strict deadline of course. Γλαύκος (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help with this Glavkos, it's appreciated. :) russavia (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ι could also work on a translation in Esperanto...maybe next month though. I have to work on some other projects this month. Γλαύκος (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!!! Let's talk again about the Esperanto translation in the beginning of June. I am busy this month :) --Glavkos (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Persian(Farsi) translation of Polandball

I have started translating it here. But I'm slightly busy so it'll probably take some time. I'll do my best anyway:)Vyatana (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vyatana, thank you ever so much for your kind assistance with this. It is appreciated. And of course, there is no deadline on Misplaced Pages, everyone is welcome to help with whatever they can spare the time to do. If you need anything from me, please let me know. :)) russavia (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I quite like Polandballs my self too :D. Just one thing, In the article you put in your talk page in fa.Wiki, the second image (The "Poland cannot into space" one) seems to have a problem. Could you check it please? Oh and, the article is here(not finished) if you wanted to check:) Thank you.Vyatana 09:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Thank you so much for the images:). I just had a question if I may, I didn't quite get why Israel is represented with a hypercube?Vyatana 12:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Polandball can into Misplaced Pages? Or can it? A timeline

• 26 March 2012 - Polandball was posted into mainspace by myself after writing it in userspace
• 26 March 2012 - Nominated for April Fools DYK
• 26 March 2012 - User:Addihockey10 reviewed the DYK nomination, and confirmed that the article fulfilled DYK requirements. DYK reviewers take responsibility for confirming that the article is more than 1,500 characters in length, that inline citations are used, that there are no NPOV issues, that the hook is referenced, etc.
• 26 March 2012 - Article is taken to AfD
• 26 March 2012 - Translation of the article was published on German Misplaced Pages. (de:Polandball)
• 26 March 2012 - Translation of the article is published on Russian Misplaced Pages (ru:Polandball)
• 4 April 2012 - German Misplaced Pages article deleted at AfD, largely on the back on the enwp AfD
• 5 April 2012 - The Russian Misplaced Pages article in nominated for deletion (ru:Википедия:К_удалению/5_апреля_2012#Polandball)
• 21 April 2012 - The Russian Misplaced Pages AfD is closed as a keep by a Russian Misplaced Pages admin and crat, who noted that articles on Russian Misplaced Pages require authoritative, in-depth sources in order to be kept, and that this was clearly demonstrated in the article and in the subsequent discussion.
• 21 April 2012 - On the back of the AfD discussion at Russian Misplaced Pages, a translation of the article is published at Spanish Misplaced Pages (es:Polandball)
• 25 April 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Catalan Misplaced Pages (ca:Polandball)
• 27 April 2012 - A stub is published on Arabic Misplaced Pages (ar:Polandball)
• 3 May 2012 - Several editors begin translating the article on Dutch Misplaced Pages (nl:Polandball)
• 7 May 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Persian Misplaced Pages (fa:Polandball)
• 7 May 2012 - A stubbish translation of the article is published on Swahili Misplaced Pages (sw:Polandball)
• 7 May 2012 - A translation of the Russian article is published on Ukrainian Misplaced Pages (uk:Polandball)
• 8 May 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Greek Misplaced Pages (el:Polandball)
• 11 May 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Bulgarian Misplaced Pages (bg:Polandball)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

In order for me to correctly request an unblock on this project, I am requesting that an admin make it perfectly clear to me exactly what reason I have been blocked for 6 months for. The AE request which resulted in the block does not make it clear exactly what was deemed to be "disruptive editing", so it is impossible for me to address issues relating to the block without this clear notice. Once I have this information, I will be able to address any problems. Russavia 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(Technical decline, as this is not actually an unblock request.) You appear to be blocked as a result of an Arb Enforcement, details to be found here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2012 (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.

• Please note, that this is an AE block, as per this. So clarification from the blocking admin is requested, and any unblock should NOT be done by any admin, but rather sent back to WP:AE. The blocking admin/WP:AE will need to be pinged in relation to this. Russavia 14:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  It seems to be explained and discussed in some detail in the AE ruling, so I really don't know what more information you want, but I'll let the blocking admin know what you're asking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's not entirely clear to me unfortunately -- there was so much going on at the time. I know part of it is the WP:IBAN violation, but the disruptive editing hasn't really been spelled out clearly. Thanks for pinging WGFinley, but it appears they aren't active? Russavia 14:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I saw WGFinley doesn't appear to be active, so I've dropped Elen a note too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just need clarification of what is the disruptive editing aspect of the block, so that this can actually be addressed. I'll await word from one of those; otherwise I guess a notice at WP:AE can be posted after a bit to see if admins there will provide more clarification. Cheers, Russavia 15:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that for you if needed - I have this page watched now, so just ask here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As clearly stated in my notification and the block log, this is a block to enforce an ARBCOM decision per this AE report. Appeal can be made at WP:AE or to the ARBCOM mailing list. The full details are in the AE report and admin discussion. --WGFinley (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, checking your own talk archive would be instructive. See User talk:Russavia/Archive 25. All these questions about your block were previously answered in early April, right here on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the 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 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. 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."

I have no love for Russavia, nor really any interaction, but their block was extended for what exactly? Silverseren 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalaway (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that was 10 days ago. Why did this happen now? Was there some sort of discussion elsewhere going on? An AE discussion or something? Silverseren 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Could there be more explanation here of why an unusual 1 year block (now effectively more than 13 months of being blocked) was a necessary sanction, and why the severe step had to be taken of removing all talk page access, especially when Russavia was apparently (encouragingly) starting to prepare a case for an unblock request? If the problem here is edits such as this one, then I would expect to see a history on this page of requests for removal, or bold removal by an admin followed by discussion, and more initial dialogue to desist from behaviour which breaches the intention of the TBAN before jumping from 6 months to a 13+ months block. Russavia may be seen by many as a complete pest in this area, I'm no expert, but in other areas is well valued as a productive contributor. I would hope there is a clear and easy path left open for Russavia so that we can see the Standard offer apply, as it does to far more badly behaved vandals and disruptive banned editors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Block Extension Rationale

I thought my notice was pretty clear and my further explanation after my notice was clear but I will expand in further detail.

1. Under discretionary sanctions by a broad consensus of admins at WP:AE Russavia (talk · contribs) was blocked for 6 months and topic banned from articles covered by the Eastern Europe Arb Case (fka "WP:DIGWUREN"). The duration of the block and ban were set by previous WP:ARBEE blocks and bans Russavia has received.
2. Russavia was notified of this decision.
3. The ban and block were logged.
4. Russavia acknowledged the block and ban. , asked for clarification and he received clarification.
5. Russavia blanked his talk page thus removing the ban and block notice and the discussion above.
6. Since the block and ban Russavia has been using his talk page here to press on with the Polandball issue, the reason he was blocked and topic banned from Eastern Europe. This is in violation of his topic ban.
7. As my talk page indicates, I have been on WP:BREAK due to a relocation in progress.
8. I was notified on my talk page and via email notice that Russavia was appealing his block. The appeal was correctly denied, this is a block due to arb enforcement, appeals need to go to Arbitration Enforcement or ARBCOM directly.
9. While reviewing and commenting to confirm the denial was correct I noticed the rest of the talk page and that Russavia was continuing his Polandball endeavors via his talk page. Since he removed the notices it wasn't noticed by the prior admins, since I delivered the notice I was well aware of it.
10. Since Russavia has been in regular violation of his topic ban on his talk page since he received it he's violated the ban and under discretionary sanctions I have blocked him for one year (doubling the previous block is common for arbitration enforcement violations) and blocked his talk page access as that has been his vehicle to continue violating his ban.
11. As the notice states, Russavia is free to appeal this block and ban directly to ARBCOM if he so desires.

I hope this answers any and all questions. --WGFinley (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to write up the clarifications.

With regard to doubling the block as common practice, the action taken here has been to extend a 6 months block to a total of more than 13 months due to time already blocked. Please consider adjusting the period accordingly. We are in danger of running foul of a version of one of Zeno's paradoxes.

I appreciate that you have been on a break, however the rationale given does seem to by-pass a having a dialogue or firm action to remove what you believe is material violating the TBAN and discussing it, especially in the light of Russavia's open preparation for an unblock request. Personally, I feel it fulfils our principles of openness if Russavia were allowed to prepare an unblock request on-wiki, rather than by secret email, especially if this were facilitated by a knowledgeable moderator, such as yourself, for where any unblock request evidence touches on TBAN related material. Thanks again --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Preparing for an unblock doesn't mean he would have been unblocked. In fact, since he spent most of his entire time since being blocked continuing on with the things he got blocked for I would consider it unlikely. He has an outlet to appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is, pardon my french, fucked up. There was no reason to extend the block. It defies common sense. Part of a successful unblock appeal for him would be to show that the polandball issue wasn't the evil thing that it was made out to be. From his work across other projects he has shown just that. By the way, the translations that Russavia posted were done by other editors and were kept at AfD by other wikipedias. I am looking over the evidence again and I am coming to see that it was all smoke and mirrors. I am partly ashamed that I agreed that the six month block was the right decision --Guerillero | My Talk 06:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather odd for someone who doesn't spend much time on en Wiki and make a block which was based on a ten day old diff (Guerillero, has stated above that it wasn't a breach) and no opportunity for a response by the community and russavia. If russavia had breached the ArbCom ruling, then the block should have been extended for twelve months and not thirteen since he had already served one month of the block. WGFinley's handling of the block is poor, the block should be reverted back and further alleged "breaches" should be dicussed before a block is extended since editors here will have differing views on it. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems Arbcom is not the last resort for appeal in this case. An AE action is appealed to AE and Arbcom will send such appeals back to AE, isn't it? GreyHood 23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've given an extensive detail of the rationale. The fact that I am not on regularly at the moment doesnt' mean I can't look at a talk page and see regular and persistent violation of the ban since it was put in place. In cases where a blocked user is using his talk page to violate a ban that access is removed. As such the usual route of appeal is via email to ARBCOM. My judgment is not beyond review, it is within the purview of ARBCOM if the user so desires. ARBCOM looks at appeals on a regular basis, if Russavia wants to challenge his block and/or ban that is his outlet to do so. --WGFinley (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

An ArbCom clerk (Guerillero) has slammed your block, your comment also doesn't address the issues raised. Best thing to do is to revert 13 month block and restore talkpage access, then take it to AE for uninvolved ArbComs to make a ruling on the alleged breach. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The original block was unjustified and the unexplained extension made matters worse. Estlandia (dialogue) 21:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Russavia,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Sukhoi Su-30 inflight.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 17, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-05-17. —howcheng {chat} 16:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

French translation of Polandball

My French is just terribly bad. It's not a good idea to let me translate anything to French. From French to English or German is np. Regards, --Stanzilla (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC) I asked another user, who speaks good English and French.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC) But he/she refused, sorry.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)