|◄◄||User talk:Jon Harald Søby||►►|
|Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20|
Hello steward Jon Harald Søby! I'm user Anton Kazmyarchuk from be.wikipedia, i have a problem. User:Belamp yesterday 3 times violated the rules of Wikipedia: he vandalized my userpage: , he (twice: - 1st time not yesterday, ) returned political ads to the page from which i recently deleted them, and when i alerted him about that the fact that () his edit is vandalism he deleted the message from his talk page: .When i contacted sysop EugeneZelenko to ask him to block User:Belamp, he told me he won't block User:Belamp and even told me that I violated some rules of Wikipedia by requesting the block of vandal. And then he left wikipedia. This is discussion with him (). Can you help me and say to sysop EugeneZelenko that he needs to block vandal. (Another sysop - User:Red_Winged_Duck has been inactive for 2 or 3 days already). Thank you! -- 18.104.22.168 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think this situation require 3rd party mediation more then block. Both users didn't behave in 100% correct way. Additionally they had revert war in two articles back in summer time. I think both of them will benefit if they'll behave more politely with each other. I proposed solution with public apology which could satisfy offended party. --EugeneZelenko 15:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, you haven't proposed public apology. If you do, I would gladly excuse Belamp (after he apologises). Note, what does "Both users didn't behave in 100% correct way" mean?. Do I have a right to edit my userpage or no? Additionaly, you haven't answered a question, why since the summer time there was kept a political advertisment on "Суполка" page. Actually, you also somewhy haven't noticed, that you kept the version, that Belamp got after reverting my edits 3(!) times without argumenting his actions. If steward Jon Harald Søby needs links about that summer accident, i'll provide them. You, EugeneZelenko, also haven't citated the rules i violated by requesting the block of user, which vandalised my userpage -- 22.214.171.124 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you didn't notice my proposal, you could find it here.
- About you behavior.
- You edited be:Вікіпэдыя:Суполка (first 2 times anonymously) without explaining your arguments in comments or talk page.
- Your old nickname (82.209.xx.xx), very similar to IP had added confusion.
- You preferred to escalate conflict instead of discuss issue with opponent.
- BTW, apology was made on be:Гутаркі ўдзельніка:EugeneZelenko#Просьба аб блакіроўцы and be:Гутаркі ўдзельніка:Red Winged Duck#Просьба аб блакіроўцы.
- EugeneZelenko 15:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Request to StewardsEdit
Hi Jon Harald, do you know, please, what happened to the statistics page? (for exemple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm or http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/CA/Sitemap.htm or http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm or )
It now seems unaccessible from any wikipedia. Thank you. Cheers, Claudi --clamengh 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome :) I think it's important for non-english speakers. guillom 11:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your translations. --M/ 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much Jon, it was my pleasure.--Vito Genovese 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In Siberian voting one part demands use new rules of voting after beginning of the vote, so people who have voted did not know that rules. Is this allowed? Why there are no vote just about this new rule? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Concern about the actions of User:MilloshEdit
Hi Jon. I would like the advice of a steward in regard to the actions of User:Millosh, who is an admin on Meta. On November 14, Millosh blocked User:Dpotop for "POV pushing vandalism on the page Wikimedia projects are not for nation-building". Dpotop contacted me, as an admin on the English Wikipedia, claiming that he had been unfairly blocked. I also believe that the block was not entirely justified, for two reasons: 1) User:Millosh was also involved in the editing dispute at that page, and he was thus an involved party; 2) He did not seek to offer Dpotop any explanation of why he was blocked and did not try to solve the edit war they had using open dialogue (instead, he accused him straight out of being a "vandal", etc). In particular, as an en.wiki admin myself, I have always believed strongly in the "involved party" principle, where if you're an admin that is in a dispute with a non-admin, you should not apply punitive measures against that user since that brings about imbalance in power (i.e. use of admin powers to ward off your opponents). Millosh should've asked a neutral admin to block Dpotop. I contacted Millosh about this, raising my concerns in a civilised manner and expecting a response or a justification from him, as any admin should transparently provide for his actions. Instead, he has accused me of being the biased "involved party" simply because I am from Romania, and has called me an "advocate of POV pushing vandal", without providing absolutely any justification for the block. For this reason, I'd like you to look into the case and see what can be done. I'm not seeking any punitive measures against Millosh, but I'd just really like him to correctly follow admin procedures and be transparent about his actions. Cheers, Ronline 00:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paginazero#Vandalism_-_elimination_of_valid_votes Can't you see that User:Node ue has made vandalism? He eliminated vote on purpose. That user is not banned, it's a normal user check, his page!
- He struck them. Eliminating votes and striking them are two different things. You also deleted two oppose votes when reverting him. Instead of bluntly reverting, try to discuss things on the talk page. Jon Harald Søby 18:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Jon, he striked them by saying false accusations. That is vandalism. I wanted to revert his edit which I did.
Yes, but he's still anti-romanian. Look at that page how he forged "emails".
- I rest my case. Nationalism has nothing to do in a discussion on whether or not a Wikipedia should exist or not. Jon Harald Søby 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#Forged_information_posted_by_User:Node_ue I understand you Jon, perfectly well. Thank you anyway, I wanted just to show you a different view on his edits. He's a vandal however. Look how he trolled there.
- There has been a checkuser and there is no proof of what Khoi is claiming .--Theios tou Euthymiou 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- So why are you asking Jon? Do you think his checkuser access is somehow more powerful and will be able to uncover what other checkuser admins have failed to uncover?--Theios tou Euthymiou 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because I live in the EU and there are strict privacy laws here.--Theios tou Euthymiou 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Smirnof had three sockpuppets, Baku87, Turk mali and Vladimirovich. I would not be surprised at all if these again were sockpuppets of Bonaparte. But it seems like he has learned how to use open proxies, which makes checking harder. Jon Harald Søby 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A robot is destroying the breton wikipedia completely, and there is no administrator there to stop it! Could you help me to solve the problem: i.e. stop the robot? Thanks in advance! Benoni on the breton wikipedia.
Hi Jon Harald, thank you so much for coping with the matter about statistics page. It is really a valuable tool! Cheers, Claudi --clamengh 19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is not my doing, I'm afraid (I forgot to ask). But it seems others wanted it back too, so it was fixed! Jon Harald Søby 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hei Jon Harald! I am writing a project application where I need updated statistical information about the Lombard Wikipedia to be added to this note:
- Den fyrste søknaden om å opprette ein Wikipedia på lombardisk vart lagd ut på nettet i midten av juni 2005. Kort tid etter opprettinga, i oktober 2005, hadde den lombardiske utgåva av Wikipedia 3 artiklar på over 200 teikn. To månader seinare, i desember 2005, hadde talet på artiklane med minst 200 teikn stige til 123, og i mai 2006 til 263. I løpet av den perioden hadde 8 nye forfattarar med over 10 editerte artiklar slutta seg til dei opphavlege 3 brukarane som hadde vore med på å fremje prosjektet om ein lombardisk Wikipedia.
The problem is that the author statistics I found in May gave the choice between 'Wikipedians' and 'Wikipedians with > 10 edits', while now, in December, at this stats page ( http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaLMO.htm ) the choice is between 'Wikipedians' and 'Wikipedians with > 5 edits' -- thus making comparison with the older data impossible. How can I get back the info for 'Wikipedians with > 10 edits'? Could you help me with this issue, or possibly address me to someone who can do sthg. about it? Yours --Kemmótar 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (målmann, linguist and co-founder of (and contributor to) the Lombard Wikipedia http://lmo.wikipedia.org).
- Hei, Kemmótar! Jeg kan ikke fikse noe med dette, men du får prøve å spørre Erik Zachte, som lager denne statistikken. Jon Harald Søby 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hei Jon Harald! Takk for tipset, eg hev spurt Erik og ventar no på svar frå han. Lukke til med gjenvalet som steward --Kemmótar 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please can you checkEdit
Please can you check the pending permission request
Hi Jon Harald, Do you recall “B,T,J,X,KH,D,R…”? That is the Somali alphabet. I am native Somali and willing to help on the wiki sites. Please check this link and see what can you do. Thank you for your interest in Somali language. --Mimursal 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Voting on Nepali WikipediaEdit
Hi there! Sorry if it inappropiate to come here too (I wrote yesterday here about it), but I wanted to remember that the voting on Nepali Wikipedia is validated and we are eager to have competent admins to implement the features of South Asian Script Enhancement Project also in this wiki. Thanks, Desiphral 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Problem solved in the meantime. Desiphral 13:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Emergency desysop of Husnock - Why?Edit
Not that I really need to know but I found it surprising that the entry on Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship was so terse considering the more expansive explanations given in all the other entries. Is the reason for Husnock's desysopping confidential or did you just not have time to explain the rationale for the emergency desysop? --Richardshusr 10:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)