User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

So...

... on the article on Władysław Syrokomla, User:M.K and User:Egisz have been edit warring (perhaps mildly) with some IPs. M.K's edits are not based on any sources. Three days ago I posted to the talk page of the article [1] where I listed over 15 sources to back myself up. I plan on undoing this edit of M.K's [2] based on these 15+ sources (I can find another 15 if need be...) and on the fact that there has been no reply on the talk page from anyone involved for three days. This would be my first ever edit to the article, and it does not fall under the naming sanction you've imposed.

However, this situation is pretty similar to the one at Vilnius University, where I also initiated discussion, the discussion was ignored, hence I made a single edit three days later, and that became one of the (two) instances that you accused me of "edit warring" in. So I want to know if making this particular edit is also going to be seen as "edit warring" - though I'm following WP:DR to the letter. Just trying to cover my butt here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that you asked rather than reverting outright...

I find edit-wars about this sort of stuff profoundly disgusting and unworthy of encyclopedists, based as it is on a sort of "my nation is better than yours because it has this great artist!" approach completely at odds with our basic mission. This war seems to have been going on for years. There appear to have been a zillion reverts about this guy's nationality already, so if you were to make another one, and anybody took this to AE, I'd have to block you as well as most other recent editors of this page for continuing a long-term edit-war. Remember, how right you are, or how many sources you have, or how many talk page comments you have made, or whether others have also misbehaved, does not matter. WP:EW does not care about any of this. It just wants people to stop reverting and start talking.

So I recommend that you do it the hard way. Start a WP:RFC on the talk page. Make a statement to the effect that this guy should be described as whatever based on the sources you found. After 30 days, ask for an admin to close the discussion and to determine consensus. Then, and only then, would I consider any edit that changes the article in accordance with the RFC consensus not to be edit-warring.

As an admin, I can't make a ruling on content issues and tell you "your sources look fine, go ahead and revert". I can only issue some edit-warring and WP:DIGWUREN warnings to all recently involved editors, so that they know (as you do now) that blocking might ensue if the reverting continues.  Sandstein  22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will start an RfC. But a couple of points. First, I believe that WP:EW does in fact care whether or not somebody is discussing the issue on talk, per WP:DR. Of course that's not a sufficient condition for "not edit warring" but it is a factor. In fact WP:EW has an explicit section on the matter [3] which is what I usually try to follow (here as well as on the Vilnius University and Bernardine Cemetery articles). Second, while this may seem "lame" to many, the fact is that whole lot of people care about this stuff, books are written on these subjects, and pretty much in any history book the introduction is usually precisely about this kind of stuff (which shows that professional historians tend to take these kinds of issues far more seriously) and if you're gonna have it in an encyclopedia, it SHOULD be based on sources. Turning away in disgust just lets less scrupulous editors to get their way. Third, while doing it "the hard way" is often the way to go, there's simply way too many articles and disputes of this nature on Wikipedia and doing an RfC on each of them would be a tremendous waste of editor time and resources. Just saying. Thanks for the recommendation though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, talking and making only a single revert is much better than blindly reverting, but after dozens of reverts, even a single revert is one too many. No objection to your second point, although there are many more important things to be said about people than an often somewhat arbitrary assignment to an often not very clearly defined "nation". With respect to your last point, it's normally less of a waste than the energy expended in edit-warring and administrating the resulting drama.  Sandstein  22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Władysław Syrokomla looks to be an excellent test of the abilities of editors with two different ethnic interests to work out a compromise article. I assume that one side of this dispute can read Polish sources, and the other side can read Lithuanian sources. He is buried in Rasos cemetery, and our article on that cemetery says, "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lithuanian and Polish authorities collaborated in an effort to restore the cemetery." Why should the two countries want to work together? Doesn't that hint at some overlap of ethnic identities for the people in the cemetery? This man could have a hybrid nationality for all we know, and the article is very weakly sourced. We do have an article called Polish-Lithuanian (adjective). It's hard to see why placing the stamp of ethnic ownership on the clearly-Polish or clearly-Lithuanian poet Syrokomla is a rational activity. We do have an article on Nicolaus Copernicus which manages to say where he was born without giving him a nationality. Perhaps this article needs an unusual discretionary sanction that says, nobody can add an ethnic claim to this article without also providing a source, and stating what that implies specifically about his ethnicity. For example, did he only write works in Polish? Who can source that? Did he speak Lithuanian? Who can source that? The list of his works includes no citation templates and we don't have ISBNs or anything with which to look them up in libraries. The source link added by M.K. does not work. There are no other sources actually in the article. At Talk:Władysław_Syrokomla Volunteer Marek has listed some books but it would be even better if he could develop some of the material from these books and add it to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Link added by me works just fine, it is in webarchive so loading may take time. M.K. (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. It's depressing to see how much energy has been expended for claiming the guy for one or the other nation, and how little for writing a halfway decent article.  Sandstein  23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Ed here. However, the details (For example, did he only write works in Polish? - mostly, he tried his hand at writing a few a few short pieces in Belarussian, none in Lithuanian, Who can source that? - I already did, on the talk page, Did he speak Lithuanian? - no) should be taken to the article's talk page rather than here. Short answer is that in virtually all sources he is called "Polish", even (or especially) by Lithuanian writers like Tomas Venclova. If we want to be multicultural and get a bit ORish, then Belarussian-Polish makes a lot more sense than "Polish-Lithuanian" ("Lithuanian" by itself is not found in any sources). If we're looking for an article where Polish and Lithuanian editors could demonstrate their willingness to cooperate there's probably better examples, like Laurynas Gucevičius (same problems).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I regard this user: Volunteer Marek complain as continuing campaign to damage my reputation. This editor claim: “M.K's edits are not based on any sources“ is this completely false – I am perhaps the only one editor who introduced sources to this page, including the source for the subjects’ ethnicity. While Volunteer Marek made ZERO edits in the main space so far yet he is making complains, this reminds me behavior which I reported previously.

Now, regarding so called edit war – this, and this and similar edits made by IP is a clear form of vandalism, and reverting vandalism is not a revert war, more: the same article was protected (by MY request) due to excessive use of socks by that notorious IP . Yet for this I got that notorious threat for blocking me! Great!

Finally, is it not curious that IP removes sources about nationality [4] and Volunteer Marek rushed here with “complains “ about edit warring and “edits which are not based on any sources”? M.K. (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You just changed one of your diff links [5] so that now it suggests that I am socking as User:89.200.212.143, is that right? (Ignore rest)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Which one?, now placed correct diff .... M.K. (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to address these statements on the article's talk page - that's why I tried to initiate discussion there in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So why are you stalking me all around? and why are you in tune with notorious Australian sock IP, which you so vigorously defended in the past. I have to admit that this Australian IP issue is not isolated issue one, there were much more socks, which of course tried to stalk me and provoke me, yet the main masters accounts are still at large. WP:EEML is full of "how to" recruit anonymous socks for slaking their opponents. And it seems nobody cares here about that. M.K. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you (Sandstein or EdJ) be willing to mediate at the article? Or talk some other people into participating? Yes, this might mean you'd feel that you couldn't do sanctions for that article; do you feel you'd then be inhibited from all related sanctions, leaving AE in the lurch? Because we are in dire need of outside views that could suggest compromises at these sorts of articles, involving complex national and ethnic identifications, and talk people down before the edit wars get ugly. Novickas (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls Adam Mickiewicz the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to you latter (I am extremely busy, and instead for spending my limited free time to improving article, I have to defend my good name as certain activists cant stop following me and reporting me) , but plz look more detail in the article there that link was placed. M.K. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed, again, this belongs on the article's talk page. Why are we having this conversation here? Cambridge History of Poland calls Adam Mickiewicz, "supreme singer of Lithuania", not Kondratewicz, who we are discussing (he was influenced by Mickiewicz). There is also the issue - which is sort of fundamental to a lot of these disputes - that Poles who lived in Lithuanian used to (and still do) call themselves "Lithuanian" ("Litwini") as well, but that doesn't meant they were "Lithuanian" in the modern sense or in a linguistic sense or in any sense except for that they felt an attachment to the place where they were born. Same true for a lot of Belarussians actually. It's sort of like calling Montezuma a "Mexican" just because he was a Mexica.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

VM has now opened a Request for Comment at Talk:Władysław Syrokomla#RfC: How should Kondratowicz's ethnicity be described in the article. This is a good way to handle the dispute. For best results, request an uninvolved admin to close the RfC when it comes time. What do editors think is reasonable for publicizing the RfC? Would it be sensible to post a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard? There don't seem to be any WikiProjects in EE that are currently active, except for WP:POLAND. There is also a WT:BALTIC, but with no posts since 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A good way in theory, in practice one sees mostly the usual suspects. How to get outsiders, I don't know. Threaded, disorganized insider argumentation drives people away. Novickas (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a small modification for my above post, regarding WikiProjects that could be active in Eastern Europe. I notice that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania which is not entirely inactive, since there are some talk posts in the last three months. I guess we could justify notifying both WP:POLAND and WP:LITH of some of these controversies about the ethnic identity of 19th-century literary figures who seem to be both Polish and Lithuanian. If there is a discussion, and people appear to be !voting along ethnic lines, there would have to be some rationale for whether the greater number of editors associated with WP:POLAND should be allowed for. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished significantly expanding Władysław Syrokomla. I would like to restore the word Polish to the lead, backed by several reliable and verifiable citations (previously, this word was not backed up by citations). Would doing so be ok? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you wait until the RFC concludes (if it concludes with a consensus to use the "Polish" designation), or otherwise you are continuing the edit war.  Sandstein  19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So where did the R from BRD went? And just to be sure, how long should I wait after the last comment on talk, and how to determine consensus, percentage-wise? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The R has already been used up with the first nationality-related revert on this article. RFCs last for 30 days, and then you should ask for an uninvolved admin at WP:AN to determine consensus.  Sandstein  20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How long does it take for the R to "refresh"? Or are you saying that if somebody made a nationality revert in 2001, and an editor makes a revert in 2011, he is revert warring? Also, are you saying that the article, with an uncited fringe claim, should stay as it is even if an editor has a better, cited version ready to fix the problem (and the other party is not even participating on talk)? If so, I am afraid your attitude towards reverts is starting to hurt both editors and articles, and empowers disruptive editors (go, revert an article, it stays in their version for at least a month, and if somebody reverts them - gotcha, report them for edit warring...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends. If the article has been productively edited for years since the last nationality-related revert, the "R" is refreshed, so to speak, because another revert would not continue an edit war. But if there have been many relatively recent reverts, another revert is likely to be seen as continuing the edit war. Also, two reverts do not make an edit war, but after four, five or so we are looking at one.  Sandstein  20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Roughly, I agree with that. What I don't agree is that one has to wait over a month to make a (partial) revert, even if the revert would be replacing unreferenced claim with a referenced one, and the other party is not active (or not constructive) on talk. I will wait to see if references are provided for the cite request I added, but I see no reason why reinstating referenced nationality claim right now would be less than constructive. I am fine with keeping the other claim in the article, with the appended cite needed template. Please note that the past edits have replaced one with another, without any references, thus my proposed edit is of a different type (keep both, request citations for one - already done, and add citations to the other one). Of course, after several days if citation is not provided, the remaining claim would be eligible for removal per WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Would it be possible for you to review and provide your opinion on the editing of Pensionero. He has recently been banned due to edit war and now he has come back with a vengance. His current nature of editing articles is not in line with Wikipedia etiquette and will only result in an edit war particularly in the articles Ponmaks, Bulgarisation and Islam in Bulgaria. You attention and advise is appreciated. REF: User_talk:Pensionero#Tendentious_editing . Hittit (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the edits you think are problematic, and explain why they are problematic.  Sandstein  16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Turkey: Pensionero intentionally abuses the source that claims 300 000 people in Turkey speak Bulgarian. This number relates to Turks from Bulgaria. The source does not say these are Pomaks who sepak Bulgarian. Clearly has been warned about this but still has made the change and clearly stating something that is not confirmed by the source. Furthemore the ethnic classification of Pomaks and their origin is one of the most contentest issue in the Balkans. He has removed this statement. He has not attempted to justify his changes in the talk page first.

Islam in Bulgaria: Pensionero has altered article text by insterting unsourced phrases such as "Very small number of Muslims", "insignificantly Islamic influences", "Islam is the largest minority religion". These type of single edits resemble very mich the definition for "Tendentious editing" and "disruptive editing". This clearly does not contribute in any way for development of this article, but is a calling card for an edit war.

Bulgarisation: Bulgariasation and forced assimilation in Bulgaria are well documented events, stating that the Pomaks were not forcefully Bulgarised by forcefully denying their religion and Islamic culture is unsourced. The comment in the talk page that forceful conversion to the Orthodox religion is not Bulgariasation is in not in any way sufficient to justify tendetions editing. Hittit (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I need diffs of this. Please see WP:DIFF. But at first glance the two last points sound like the description of a content dispute, which I can't adjudicate. See WP:DR for how to proceed.  Sandstein  17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He has now broken the 3RR rule after being engaged in an edit war in the articles Pomaks and Bulgarians in Turkey. He had been previously warned on his talk page on his behaviour. See evidence 1 and evidence 2Hittit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

These URLs seem to be broken. I recommend that you use WP:AN3, that's what it's for.  Sandstein  17:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

(I Revive an old discussion by copying from the archive). Eliko (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think my case should be closed - according to my comments ibid. Eliko (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to close; I've declined the request already.  Sandstein  11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that, but I mean that {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} should be added to the whole discussion, which was opened on definitely wrongfull grounds. See my comments ibid., and understand what I mean. Eliko (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's normally done on that board. Just let it drop and please don't edit-war again.  Sandstein  11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you that this is "not normally done on that board". However, this is done - in abnormal cases - like my case! Please see Okkar's case: {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} were added to the discussion.
• "Don't edit-war again"? It seems like you didn't read - even my first sentence ibid. ("I didn't make even one revert - during the 24 hours - of 16-17 March - to which User:Basket of Puppies refers!"). If you read my whole explanation ibid., you will understand that: not only didn't I edit-war at all, but also there were no grounds for opening the discussion from the very beginning, what makes it an abnormal case! Please see my comments ibid., and understand what I mean...
• I'm looking forward to your reviewing my request. If you still think you can't comply with it, then please consider to change the result - from "declined" - into: "declined: No violation".

Eliko (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Polyspermy cited in the request were edit-warring. I do not think that it is necessary to make further edits to the request.  Sandstein  14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it seems like didn't read my explanation there; If you did, you wouldn't have said that.

During 2011, I made 6 edits only (From 15 March to 17 March). Has any of them anything to do with edit war? Would like to point at any of them and clarify why you think it has anything to do with edit war?

1. The first edit is the only revert (of edits made by other users) I ever made on this article. Note that I reverted, only after I had discussed the issue on the article talk page, and after there had been no response to my comments, and after I had indicated this fact on the article talk page. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
2. The second edit does not constitute a revert to any previous version, but rather considers User:Basket of Puppies' comment (in their edit summary), by my adding some new clarification to the wrongfully removed chapter, as I clearly indicated in my edit edit summary. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
3. The third edit was self-reverted by myself three minutes later. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
4. The fourth edit self-reverts myself. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
5. The fifth edit does not constitute a revert to any previous version, but rather considers User:Basket of Puppies' comment (in their edit summary), by my improving the wrongfully removed chapter, as I clearly indicated in my edit edit summary. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
6. The sixth edit simply deletes a double title. Does this have anything to do with edit war?

• Can you point at any of these edits and clarify why you think it has anything to do with edit war?

Eliko (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You made three reverts:

• Reverting removal of the "Mythology" section
• Reverting the removal again
• Reverting the removal again

A revert is any edit that undoes the action of another editor, in whole or in part. It does not matter, therefore, that your reverts may also have added new content each time or may not have reverted to an exact previous state. They are nonetheless reverts because they reverted the removal of a "Mythology" section, and such a chain of reverts is edit-warring.  Sandstein  18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To sum up, you claim that: my adding the chapter - less than four times - during a period of more than 40 hours, is an edit war, although I had discussed the issue on the article talk page - before I added the chapter, and although I considered the arguments of the other editor (raised in their edit summary) against the chapter - by my improving the chapter each time (rather than by reverting to a previous version).

Is this what you claim? According to your position, I have to conclude the following: if I think a chapter - that lasted for 3 years - has just been removed wrongfully, and I discuss the issue on the article talk page, and nobody responds, then I have to refrain from improving (in accordance with the other editor's comments on the edit summary) the wrongfully removed chapter, right? Note that once any user agreed to respond to me on the article talk page, I refrained from improving the wrongfully removed chapter, although I'm sure the new argument - raised recently on the article talk page by others - is wrong!

Eliko (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So? Eliko (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So your disagreement with my advice is noted.  Sandstein  10:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein. Here's an image I took. This is a front cover of the book with my image. Am I allowed to upload an image of this cover to wikipedia? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question (and very cool photograph, by the way). I would assume that yes, given that it's a derivative work of a CC-BY-SA photo, and adherence to that license is a requirement for the use of the image on the cover. But don't take my word for it. Instead, I recommend that you ask for the opinion of experts at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing.  Sandstein  06:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ae appeal

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I trust you will take appropriate care with your edits.  Sandstein  17:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But given the controversial nature of (at least one of) topic area(s) I edit in, and the paranoia you now installed in me, I expect I'll be keeping the 3O and RfC folks quite busy in near future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's better to keep them busy than the admins. (Of course, I say that as an admin...)  Sandstein  06:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're here, can you take a look at this user's edits [6]. He has been performing mass moves of EE articles without discussion, requests for move (until recently where he launched mass RMs) or inputs from others. The trick appears to be to do so many of these moves and RMs that most editors can't pay attention nor do they have time to devote to each one individually, hence the changes become implemented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, mass moves are problematic, but starting discussions is the correct way to resolve such issues - unless consensus turns out to be that all or most such proposals are unfounded. If they resume mass moves, a warning will be needed.  Sandstein  10:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Senkaku Islands's talk page.- Ajl^talk 15:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr Dan's ban

Sandstein, I suspect you probably couldn't care less, but I think your ban of Dr Dan was appallingly harsh. This is a good editor, not a disobedient animal. There's no reason to think Dr Dan or Lokyz could have thought some scattered reverts would lead to such severe punishments. All they did was participate in an edit-war started by a nationalist from a neighbouring country. These individual punishments are not the solution to the naming war problem. Please bare in mind that these users bore a large part of EML co-ordinated wikibullying: occasional incivility less bad that the average AN/I contribution or some reverting doesn't give sufficient excuse for these bans. DIGWUREN didn't even involved Lithuanian editors. M.K. Lokyz and Dr Dan are also three of the main contributors to Lithuanian articles in English wiki. Castrating these users and making them more vulnerable and less powerful than any tendy IP is not a solution to this problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not interested in the history or the national and social dynamics of the various ideological wars on Wikipedia. I approach these issues on a case-by-case, editor-by-editor basis. I look only at whether a user disrupts Wikipedia by edit-warring or otherwise, and if yes, I take into into account any past history of misconduct in determining which level of sanction is appropriate - not to punish, but to prevent further problems. "Good editors" do not edit war, period, no matter the circumstances.  Sandstein  22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

-

But in reality lots of good users edit-war. We're here to contribute to an encyclopedia. I have a lot of respect for how you handle yourself on Wikipedia and how you make so many decisions on so many cases so well, but I find the attitude some administrators have that caring about an article's content is somehow immature or contemptible to be far more contemptible than any edit-warring. It is far worse to contribute nonsense to an encyclopedia read by millions of people than it is to revert someone adding nonsense, no matter how many times you have to revert it. We have BRD, and that's all well and good, but if the 'opponent' just chooses not to respect it then reverting again is the only option other than 30. Not everyone is a nice polite Swiss gentlemen who can be expected to act reasonably. ;) In EE matters 30 is almost always a farcical battle between groups of alligned users pretending to be uninvolved, hoping to suck some true neutral in as excuse to seek punishment or perform another revert. 3O would be necessary so often, with no value, that there is in practice no choice but to revert. The contributors are trapped. But let's put this aside. You have a good administrative head. Look at it from their point of view. How were they to know such level of punishment was to be expected? If you were to hear that in Switzerland some guys were given 15 years and banned from employment for swearing at each other, you would object, right? Yeah, we think swearing is wrong, and they knew they shouldn't do it, but they're entitled to have some ability to predict what the state will do to them for it, no? The punishments you have given to Dr Dan and Lokyz are extremely severe. Why, because of some DIGWUREN post-case scope-creep, should a small number of normally good editors be singled out for punishment for behaviour quite common and for the most part within BRD? I'm not disagreeing with you that reverting over names like this is something we should oppose; but I don't understand why this solution is supposed to be a reasonable one, nor how you think it will work. I agree punishments of such severity might be necessary in future, but the community needs to hone its attitude to these disputes first (and it is in the process of doing so as far as I can see). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"All they did was participate in an edit-war started by a nationalist from a neighboring country" - Since I think I was mentioned here...can Deacon of Pndapetzim clarify who is he referring to by saying "the nationalist" and why he claims that the "nationalist from the neighboring country" started the edit war? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)