User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Discretionary sanctions: topic ban

You appear to have imposed an invalid ban on my account. An appeal will be sent directly to the Committee. STSC (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have been more appropriate if you had pointed out to me why you felt the ban is invalid; that way, we might even have discussed it, like reasonable people. But in any case, it seems you have already gone ahead and asked the arbs directly, so I guess I'll just leave it to them to handle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I received a ban appeal by email, and I am replying here in order to keep conversations together as much as possible. Firstly, as a general principle, I would never think to undo a fellow administrator's action without some sort of communication with them first, both from the appealing party and from myself. Secondly, whilst I was the Arbitration Committee clerk in the Senkaku Islands arbitration case, I am otherwise uninvolved in this dispute, and do not intend to involve myself further. Thirdly, if the intent is to appeal directly to the committee, I do not see what role I am expected to play. I will consequently not be taking any action on the ban appeal. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. From what STSC said, I gather he meant to appeal to the committee itself, so maybe he thought you as the clerk would be forwarding it to them; but in any case he seems to have written to NYB too so I suppose the committee has what it needs. STSC: in principle, you could also appeal to the community via WP:AE; the process is outlined there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I was advised by an arbitrator to appeal via AE before appealing to the Committee. I would discuss this issue with you first before going through the AE process. As you have mentioned "like reasonable people", I feel that you should at least contact the editor directly on their talk page to raise any issue you may have before you decide to impose any ban on them. Besides, I believe it is a requirement to warn the editor directly before any sanction is imposed. I had made one revert in order to restore a version close to the original version before the change of the wording in the NCGN page. I don't think I fit into this description for a sanction: "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". STSC (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning was given on the guideline talkpage; besides, it is longstanding practice that editors who are named parties of the Arbcom case in question don't need extra notifications about the formalities, as they are already aware of the decision, especially when it's so recent. Edit-warring on a guideline page is a particularly serious matter, and you were continuing this problematic conduct after the warning. Moreover, the style and tone of your accompanying talkpage message displayed an aggressive, unconstructive attitude in your editing. I get the same impression from going over your talkpage contributions in the archives of Talk:Senkaku Islands; they are repetitive, fail to constructively address arguments by other editors, and could well be described as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For these reasons, I believe the sanction is justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your general statement on the NCGN page is hardly a warning at all; and a direct warning should be given to the editor as required by the Committee. I also refute the allegations you made to justify your questionable sanction. This serves as a notice to you that an arbitration enforcement action appeal is lodged. STSC (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that you yourself have been warned by another admin "to remain civil with no attacks to others anywhere on Wikipedia" in Civility please. STSC (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And what on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? How has FutPerf attacked you or been uncivil? I see nothing remotely of the sort here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was in response to his allegations on me being uncivil apparently. STSC (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, tu quoque is hardly an argument for the lifting of sanctions. And that's assuming the accusation up the page that FutPerf has been uncivil is even accurate, which I don't see much evidence for. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

From the content in the "Civility please" alone, we can see his tone of aggressive and nonconstructive attitude. STSC (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Essay on AE

I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Voyevoda edit-warring again

Undiscussed reverts with insults in edit summaries - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Fyodorov_(printer)&curid=576666&action=history.--Galassi (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You assistance

Hi there. I would appreciate your assistance on the below matter. In the article about Peloponnese, two users keep reverting all the time pics that I have put there to help the article on the grounds that they are "technically poor". On the other hands the photos they put are a) a photo about Rio-antirrio bridge, which to begin with, its not even in Peloponnese, and b) the Corinth Canal, which again is not part of Peloponnese! The first is a bridge that connects the mainland with Peloponnese and the second is a Canal that seperates the mainland and Peloponnese! Total inconsistency! If you recall, you had also praised many of my pictures and you moved them in Wikipedia Commons as well. I would like your assistance in this article, since you are an experienced and "old" user. Thanks.Nochoje (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI I mentioned you

here [1] and btw your chiming in might help. Thanks! -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Taichung Edit

You reverted the table format at Taichung stating that there were many non-free images. Would you consider reverting to the table format, but replacing the non-free images with the national flag of the country? Would this fix the problem? Please advise me. Jacsam2 (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't object to such a table version on image policy grounds, so I wouldn't prevent you from reinstating that in my role as an administrator, but as an editor, I am still opposed to it, on the grounds I and others explained on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. I very strongly recommend you start listening more carefully to what other editors tell you, because you appear to be editing stubbornly against consensus. I am also not particularly happy you reinstated that list of countries on Byzantine Empire, again without providing a reason for it on the talkpage as you were asked to do. This is edit-warring, and it's not good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand and am listening, and apologise for the Byzantine edit, I just thought the objection was for the length added, and not content. The edit was a very time consuming one and I would very much appreciate if you would allow me to revert to it. Also, a concensus has yet to be reached at that page.

Jacsam2 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ARBMAC restriction on LAz17

I see you weakened the deal that I struck with LAz17, logged at WP:ARBMAC, shortly after it was struck. What's up with that? Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't remember the exact details of the situation around that request right now, but as far as I can figure out, I had no intention of interfering with any sanction imposed by you. I imposed an original topic ban, you then added a strengthened version on top of it, then you rescinded your part of the topic ban, leaving mine intact, and I later modified "my" part too. Do you feel it interferes unduly with what you were doing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to figure out what the current restriction is. Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg again

Since you are the warning admin, please take a look at this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you so much for this topic ban. It saved a lot of disruption, both in the form of continued discussion from an editor, and also from the disruption that long and unnecessary dispute resolution causes. Cutting to the chase in such a clear cut case was a wise thing to do. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

STSC evaded his topic-ban using Lvhis as a proxy.

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise. User:STSC edited a banned article using User:Lvhis as a proxy.

• Lvhis halted to respond to my post to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute at 21:17, 11 October (UTC).[2]
• STSC requested Lvhis to enable e-mail account of Wikipedia at 4:06, 17 October (UTC).[3]
• Lvhis enabled his e-mail account of Wikipedia at 23:43, 18 October (UTC).[4]
• STSC sent an e-mail to Lvhis at 01:38, 19 October (UTC).[5]
• Lvhis received the e-mail at 03:56, 19 October (UTC).[6]
• Lvhis edited Talk:Senkaku Islands 14 hours after receiving the e-mail at 17:55, 19 October (UTC).[7]

Lvhis is a SPA and solely editing Senkaku Islands articles. The purpose of STSC's communication with Lvhis by e-mail is nothing other than to suggest Lvhis a proxy editing of the STSC's idea. I think a banned user should not communicate with an editor who is involved in a banned article and discuss about the article. Even if it is not a direct edit request but a simple advice, such an action will affect the editor with STSC's idea. I would appreciate if you could impose an extended period of ban and block on both users as a violation of WP:BAN. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Gersoncharles

Hi. It appears that after his block and your warning of 26 February, Gersoncharles (talk · contribs) has neglected to clean up after his mess of copyright violations. I tried to contact you before about this, but my message was immediately archived.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I only see two remaining images contributed by him, which are probably legitimate, and no upload attempts after that warning. Is there other problematic stuff around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic-banned - user:samofi

Its clear ethnic nationalism of 6-7 Hungarian users, they are canvassing, they contact together by email, they told that Slovakia is neofascist state (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=454209623). They makes a falsification of history and Iam banned? What exactly is nationalistic in my edits? I used talk:pages and discuss all my edits. But nothing happened to this users (they were reported for a few times), they were not even warned because of their behaviour. They can create a synthesis and original research or fringe theory and it will be no opposition against this original research? Look honestly to this article: Principality of Hungary - is it no reason to discuss it? I started terminological discussion between terms Magar(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magyar) and Hungarian(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hungarian). Is it nationalistic? Is this an open encyclopedia? This elimination of Slovak history and Slovak Wikipedians is crazy. I see the black future of Wikipedia, we will have a big inviolate ideological groups and other significant opinions will be banned. Congratulation, bravo. --Samofi (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)