User talk:Digwuren/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Digwuren, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 1 2007 to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Alex Bakharev 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, no more reverts. I counted six straight reverts in the last few hours, one after my warning Alex Bakharev 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More than a day has passed since. During the time, I have explained the reversal in questions on the discussion page, and received no comments. I believe I'm now justified in reflecting the documented consensus on the main page. Digwuren 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting my articles! (by Redstar1987)

Instead of fueling lies, you should have watched the movie and see what it shows. I have watched it and it can clearly be seen that the police car is breaking through demonstrants in a relatively high speed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redstar1987 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Anonymous edits from 194.182.142.5

Form your edits it seem likely that you are the same person who contributed from IP 194.182.142.5. Can you please confirm or deny?

Yes, I made them. The address belongs to some sort of public ISP operating out of the Copenhagen International Airport, and I was anonymous because my laptop didn't have my Wikipedia account's password, and I didn't have a way to retrieve it from my desktop.

I would have added the confirmation under the statement to that effect on the discussion page, but my statement has already been archived. Digwuren 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, what is Challenge 24? -- Petri Krohn 10:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[2], of course. Digwuren 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

I reverted your edit including a YouTube link, per WP:LINKS. If you believe this wasn't right, please contact me on my talk page. Jmlk17 06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfectly good explanation to me. As I said in my entry on your talk page, if you were unsure of my reversal, but now I know I was in error. Thank you for the explanation, and happy editing! Jmlk17 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove referenced inf.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Estonian SSR, you will be blocked from editing. Please, notice, that removing referenced information as you did here, is considered vandalism (see "Blanking" section there). For edits in such a style a user can be blocked.Cmapm 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Denialism"

That's my first delete vote in a long time. There's an important line between an article where the author's POV is evident, but could still be cleaned up within the framework of the existing article, and an article so thoroughly POV, and about such a sensitive subject, that it actually frightens me to think that people may read it and be influenced by it. Some buildings are in bad shape, but you can fix them up with a little work; others are in ruins and if a person tried to fix them up they could be killed by a structural collapse. Sometimes you have to bring in a bulldozer and start over from scratch. Wikipedia should cover the viewpoints of people who hold positive and negative views about the Soviet role. What it absolutely should not do is present it in some form that compares one side to Holocaust denial (which is appallingly ironic, considering the circumstances). An article that approached the topic from the right perspective would be fine, but that particular article will never be anything more than a propaganda piece. Everyking 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The reverts listed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Digwuren reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: 48 hours) revert vandalism of the abuse of tags type, as defined on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Specifically, they revert Petri Krohn's repeated additions of the {{totallydisputed}} tag into the article Jüri Uluots without any mention of what the dispute would be on the talk page. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Petri Krohn reported by User:DLX (Result: Blocked 24h) for a list of the reversals.) As explained in WP:3RR#Exceptions, such obvious vandalism is not covered by the three-revert rule.

       * Furthermore, the stalking accusation is baseless. It should be pointed out that Petri Krohn has in the past already attempted such an accusation without being able to back it up; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren.

Decline reason:

Abuse of tags vandalism refers to "Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}", etc. as is clearly stated in the policy you cited above. Whether an article should be tagged {{totallydisputed}} is a content dispute, one that in this case you edit warred over. -— Selket ^Talk 21:55, 23 May 2007 (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.

The block has been shortened 24 hours now, since there is no conclusive evidence that you were wiki-stalking. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you my sockpuppet?

Good morning - as I just found out, you are "likely" my sockpuppet - see [3] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. I am willing to have my IP history to be shown there, as I have nothing to hide - would be nice, if you'd to the same. I presume your ISP is Elion as well? DLX 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Beef!

:) I know, i dont remember the link but ill place it tommorrow or in the morning.

---

I don't know Illythr personally, but have known him on WP for the last several months. I guess (which is simply my impression from different discussions, I have not been told) that someone older in his family was an officer in the Red Army, and came to Moldova when transfered to civilian life (suppositions) He protested when I once introduced edits about the "guests", but was absolutely fine with them when I explained the cathegory in more detail. He also seemed to me very interested in the Continuation War (Finland; 1941-44), esp. in one part of it - who won and who lost. I don't know about some party membership, but I'd doubt it. I might be mistaken, who knows. I tend to believe that his reasons for opposing the article are personal.

[the above is not meant to be secret from him, and it's stuff anyone interacting with him knows/believes, I just feel it is inapropriate in the deletion discussion page]

I don't remember that song's melogy, but I think it's notable. And since we are at it, I'd suggest also "Uvezu tebia ia v tundru". There is an old edit that is at the core of Illythr's "obsetions" with "personal attacks". I have an mp3 of this one.:Dc76 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Soviet crimes

As I predicted, it depended on whim of the closing admin. Someone more historically knowledgeable (and perhaps less prejudiced - see his edit history) would have probably renamed the article (note that closing admin had issues with the name of the article, while unable to show how the article was POV - so far none of the deniers have managed that). In any case, I have article (as of 08:13, 23 May 2007) in my user space - User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes. I propose we invite others, who were active in editing, there it as well - such as Staberinde, Vecrumba, Marting and others who are capable of staying NPOV - and re-write the article to fit current name. Every claim referenced - preferably double-referenced, no neologisms, no disputable claims... rock solid article. And when we are satisfied with the article, then we can move it to mainspace - I am quite sure it will be slapped with speedy delete, AfD, POV and TotallyDisputed within hours, but hopefully this time closing admin will actually be able to see the arguments from both sides... or lack of them from one side, as it was now. DLX 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of your copy. I still hope to get the latest version undeleted into my userspace, as I (hopefully) have applied on Wikipedia:Deletion review, though.

As an aside, Suva has expressed readiness to help, but he is strangely passive recently.

My theory on the WP:POVFORK issue that got raised is pretty much what I outlined earlier: Soviet crimes can be discussed in separate articles, but their orchestrated denial is best treated in a single narrative. I believe this issue needs to be worked upon, and a fully developed solution be offered for future.

I have been relatively busy off-Wikipedia for the last few days, and I believe there are no major contributions by me that are missing from your copy from Wednesday. I think the only two changes I have made since were a copy of the Holodomor issues from the relevant page, as a preparation for working upon it, and addition of Putin's own quote, as reported in [4]. I do not know about other possible contributions, though. Digwuren 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I now remember Alexia Death fixed a problem regarding the MRP earlier today.

Furthermore, I took a look at the arguments and the policy, and I suspect getting the deletion reversed may actually be viable. Another question is whether we want to -- for example, with a new article, Irpen's threat regarding move won't apply because there won't be a move per se. Digwuren 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

_{edit conflict}I'd like to keep conversations in one place - so I moved your reply back here, I hope you don't mind.

Deletion review is a good idea, but I am unsure it will help. You didn't apply for a full deletion review, though, just temporary restore?

In any case, we must get non-Estonian/non-Baltic editors to the article as well - so that our favorite Estonian-hater couldn't come up with his silly conspiracy theories again (have you seen this? It is funny, how he never has any sources but calls ours "dubious", "biased" and so on. He likes fancy words). DLX 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. I'm not entirely sure for the procedure, but my understanding is that temporary undeletes to userspace are done through "deletion review". Digwuren 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Somebody with that many delusions and borderline paranoia (remember this? Well, I've gotten two further stalking accusations from him, both just as misguided and baseless.) will complain *anyway*.

Instead, I'd just make sure formal warnings and, when appropriate, reports get issued as appropriate, for in a few weesk, the Wikipedia bureaucrats will likely be glad if they're nicely official and documented. (Have you seen [5] yet?)

Another interesting issue is that of the category of 'Soviet crimes' which I created earlier today, in response to somebody's suggestion of creating such an article. Of course, there's [6] already. I think I'll vote keep on it for now, but then create 'Crimes of Soviet regime' to replace it and address the somewhat valid criterion ambiguity issues.

Finally, should we bother about the Russian edition of Bronze Soldier? I checked it today, and it contained a number of inaccuracies, from a reference to the Law of Forbidden Structures as it would be valid, up to what I suspect is a reference to the statue having been unwelded at ankles (but I might be a victim of mistranslation on that one). Digwuren 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My Russian is rather rusty - and I doubt we could actually change anything before we get called "Estonian fascists" and banned. Go ahead if you think could make a difference... but consider that we get "best and brightest" to English WP - and they still include BFF and M.V.E.i.

As for Petri - yes, I have seen those. He has some personal petty hatred against Estonia, but I doubt we can do anything about it, just counter his (occasionally childish) claims with citing good sources. DLX 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry if I intrude in a discussion that is not of my business. I just want to tell that unsuspecting you'd get it restored to user sandbox, I also asked Moreschi to restore it to mine. I would like to participate in the editing of the new version, as well, if possible. I propose to work it here: User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes, also because it has a good title, and to keep the one in my sandbox unchanged for reference, so anyone can compare the new and old versions. I agree with DLX about "rock solid article".

I realized after the deletion that I bear some share of guilt for not stopping re-replying, and thus inflating the talk. In that volume it was hard to discern the solid arguments from the non-sense talk, it gave the impression "controversy", "editors get personal and accuse each other". It would be nice if when the new article would be proposed for deletion (it will be), "keep" and "delete" be listed in separate sections. Maybe we can ask everyone to keep the comments on topic, and never to reply to anyone under the other side's section, but if there is an issue that merits a sentense of two, add it under your own initial comment.

To avoid accusations of vagueness in the future, is it possible to decide an approximate table of content from the begining? (That if I'm welcome to editing.) Anyway, thank you for saving it, and have a nice day.:Dc76 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to move my restored copy over to DLX's userspace, where currently the old copy is. Currently, there are multiple copies around, and this is bound to cause confusion.

I think it's useful to keep the history of the previous article, too, but not paramount.

My original intent was that the "list of typical claims by deniers" would be a rough TOC. I'm not sure how to implement it, yet.

Your suggestion for keeping the votes separate has some merit, but it is not feasible without heavy policing on the page, as the deniers *will* raise long threads about "You nazi!". I'm not sure what the policy on such policing is, but I would propose declaring in the beginning of the DfA an intent to separate the votes located in wrong section, and that any unrelated discussion will be moved over to the initiator's talk page. It might even be a good idea to propose this to become the general policy, if it works out. Digwuren 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, we should keep working in one single place, while having somewhere a copy/history of the previous article. Unless told otherwise, I'll assume User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes is the working page, and that you (Digwuren) keep somewhere a history of the previous article for reference (occasionally someone might want to consult it to see what specific issues atract more controversy).

"List of typical claims of the deniers" is a good starting point for the TOC, but can be slightly improved, IMO. Look how this is done at Holocaust denial. Also, a good think to check is Denial of the Armenian Genocide, Srebrenica genocide#Alternative view, and I am sure there are more.

For example 1) to not respond at all under deniers' votes; 2) if x responds under my vote, I'd nicely move his/her respons under x's own vote with "(response/reaction to Dc76 arguments)" added in italic; 3) if I feel impossible to resist replying to x, add add under my own vote "(response/reaction to x's arguments)". If a group of 5-6 users use consistently such a policy, it would most certainly become "contageous" for that AfD. A slightly easier version of such a general policy exists when people vote for admins (RfA), so we are not inventing the wheel here. I'd support the idea to propose this to become a general policy if a group of users involved in the particular discussion prefer it.:Dc76 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think article should stay in Digwuren's user space for editing. Not only did he start the article, he was also most active in developing and defending it. DLX 07:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm fine with any place, as long as we'll all work on a single article rather than each doing a fork. I have a slight preference for this particular *instance*, because this has the history, but I wouldn't mind moving it where the consensus suggests. Digwuren 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll join you here: User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes. I will also keep the copy restored to my userspace by the user who deleted the article -- in case if someone tries to say we have no right to keep coppies of deleted articles in userspace and nomnate the usespace for deletion (I've been witness to one such case, and although it sounds totally crazy, it happens).:Dc76 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Backupping userspace into another userspace won't work. If this craziness would happen, there's nothing to restrain the censworshippers from also deleting your copy.

We should be taking offline copies every now and then. Digwuren 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Working in Digwuren's page is absolutely fine with me, I simply got confused by so many others. And that one indeed is the best by all standards. (I'll want to read around for a few days before contributing, though, in order to make myself an idea of what I can do; also I'm a little busy off-WP) Taking offline coppies is obviously a good idea. (I'll also do it from time to time.) But I'll keep the one restored in my userspace for a completely different reason - it has the signature of the person who deleted the article, so noone can accuse us of working (editting) stuff "decided to be deleted". You are absolutely right, WP is not a friendly environment, but rather than throughing away a stick that comes to my hand, I'd prefer simply putting it in the bag. :-) User talk:Moreschi also has evdence that we are not trying to push a POV, since he himself says there we are welcome to continue working on the material and come up with a better article. Anyway, thanks for saving the page and for starting the article.:Dc76 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of confusion to be avoided. :)

The official place for continued work on this article shall be User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes.

Better, hopefully.

Take all the time you need. We were in a kind of hurry during the AfD, to get the article into a persistable condition within the five days allotted for discussion. This rush is now over, and everybody can pay more attention to quality and less to getting-this-thing-out-of-door-soon.

I believe that the primary reason User:Moreschi closed the discussion the way he did was that he believed the content of the article did not fit the topic, and he may have felt the definition of topic was poorly sourced. The content issues were an artefact of my hesitating in renaming the article during the AfD, but User:Moreschi has now confirmed it should not have been an issue, and I checked the appropriate policy, too. The poor sourcing of the intro shouldn't really have been an issue, but as it was, it, too, was an artefact to constrain the article into a scope that wasn't appropriate. Both of these issues can be remedied.

What can't be remedied is that no matter how good this article will be, a number of editors *will* decry it. This needs to be considered; special care should be taken to avoid any appearance of POVishness. When we're at the place where every reasonable reader of the article will consider it obviously neutral, this alone will discredit the die-hard "You nazi!" screamers.

Oh, and one more thing. As it turned out, the AfD got canvassed on the Russian Wikipedia noticeboard, with a direct call towards voting for deletion. In interests of avoiding any reasonable-sounding claims of coverup, or stealth, in reintroducing this article, I suspect that when we do, we should deliberately announce this reintroduction on the same forum. It is unlikely that it will influence the AfD unless we really screw up, but it'll hopefully give the article a better and more open footing. Digwuren 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. :Dc76 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation denialism article

Userfied here: User:Digwuren/Soviet occupation denialism Herostratus 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be a rather good idea to not waste the good work and to use much of the text and references from this (previous) standalone article in other articles about the 1940 Soviet invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and about the subsequent 1940-1991 Soviet occupation of these three nations. Cheers, --3 Löwi 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page you also asked for has been userfied at User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet occupation denialism. Let me know when you're done with it. AKRadecki 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnocracy

Minor footnote: To "hold citizenship" certainly sounds better, however, to "possess citizenship" is not completely incorrect either. For a "legal precedent" (well, in fact, just the quickest Google result I came across) see, e.g., http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0352P.pdf Compliments, --Klamber 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Digwuren 06:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Duplicate RfDs

No problem. You're welcome. -- JLaTondre 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you...

... get my email? Renata 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I considered putting the whole thing onto a temporary page, but it might constitute copyvio, so I decided against it. I hope to be able to summarise the articles into raw article material soon.

Thank you for the effort. Digwuren 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I just ran a quick search on Factiva. Precisely because of copyvio factor I emailed you those articles instead of putting them somewhere on WP. BTW, there was a big fuss around May 5, 2005 (60th anniversary of the Victory Day) and commemoration ceremonies in Russia (destroying Nazis vs. glorifying Stalin). You might want to look deeper into that. Renata 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Annexation

Why did you revert edits to the Annexation page without addressing the issues on the article's talk page --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was obvious: I was readding a large block of well-sourced text deleted for dubious reasons. But since I appear to have been wrong about the obviousness, I have now added a brief note to the talk page. Digwuren 10:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Please participate in Talk:Estland#Do we want to keep the article together or make it a disambig? Alex Bakharev 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jüri Uluots

You wrote on my talk page:

June 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jüri Uluots. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Digwuren 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have motivated my edits at the talk page Talk:Jüri_Uluots where the discussion should take place. Please respond there Otto 08:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, but as of 8:24 UTC, the discussion does not appear to be there yet. I guess I'll wait a bit longer. Digwuren 08:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Spectra-Morphic

It's not patent nonsense, though given the external links I removed I suspect it is an attempt at some hidden linkspam. Regardless this isn't a speedy, please PROD or AFD (and given the creator's penchant for tag removal I'd suggest AFD).--Isotope23 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Konstantin Päts Johannes Käbin Saare County Estonian Football Association Estonian National Council Kunda Forest Guerrillas (Finland) Sillamäe Lääne County Suur-Pakri Livonian Confederation Satellite state Estonian Independence Party Forest Brothers Lääne-Viru County Stimson Doctrine Võru County Jõgeva County Swedish Estonia

Cleanup Otto Strandman Reichskommissariat Ostland Reichskommissariat Kaukasus Merge Baltic Republics Crime in Estonia History of Latvia Add Sources Jüri Uluots Vana Tallinn Jaan Tõnisson Wikify University of Barcelona Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Helmut Baierl Expand Post-Soviet states Menelik I Transition economy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

stop!

stop vandalising the article about the Soviet occupation of bessarabia. the fact that you don't agree with what has happened 60 years ago doesn't give you the right to delete referenced informationAnonimu 16:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring comment to user talk pages

If a user removes a comment from their talk page it indicates they've seen it, persistently restoring it is likely to be seen as trolling and/or harassment. Don't do it. --pgk 09:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonian

If you don't mind me asking, do you know of any good web-based resources for learning Estonian (or, at a pinch, any good coursebooks for it)? My girlfriend is Estonian, and I'm trying to surprise her by learning her language, rather than just sprinkling our conversations with badly-pronounced words in it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring, if not an outright 3rr violation, on Monument of Lihula. Obviously you weren't warned, but I take the fact that you've been blocked before as evidence that you were aware of the rule generally, and that you gave warnings here as evidence that you were aware of the revert-war occuring. Since this is the second block, it is for 48 hours instead of the customary 24. Please work constructively with other editors on talk pages. Otherwise you may find the article protected or yourself blocked for a third time.--Chaser - T 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Digwuren, it is true (as you imply in your unblock request) that you only reverted three times in 24 hours (this was yesterday) but the rule is also quite clear that it doesn't serve as an entitlement to revert up to three times per day. Rather, it is a flexible guide against edit-warring, and the numbers can vary based upon the circumstances.--Chaser - T 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My point, and the basis of the unblock request, is that it is unreasonable to construe my actions as an edit war. Digwuren 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've clarified things. Good enough for me.--Chaser - T 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, it seems that conversely sometimes even 4th revert by a well-known edit warrior does not earn a block, see [7]. But, Digwuren, even commenting on this particular block I can only remind you what I once told. It is simply a pity to see people like you trapped by an unabashed polemicist. Unfortunately there is no way out unless we start using Wikipedia tools like this or this when there is a need. E.J. 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S.The evidence section of mr. Krohn's disruptive behaviour accelerates every day. Here we have (for umpteenth) time vicious accusations of Holocaust denial. Doesn't it really in Chaser's opinion merit a block? I strongly urge all admins who happen to glance at this page to consider unblocking Digwuren, because it is obvious, what the real root of problem is.E.J. 06:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Digwuren and the 206.186.8.130 for edit warring on Monument of Lihula when I noticed a report on the 3rr noticeboard. There was no notice there of any edit-warring by Petri Krohn. If you want a sysop to look into that, you are welcome to make a report to WP:AN/3RR.--Chaser - T 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that you blocked 206.186.8.130 for only 24hr for breaching 3RR, yet block Digwuren for 48hr, even though he did not breach 3RR. Why the difference? Did Petri Krohn's attack on Digwuren with accusations of Holocaust denial on the 3rr noticeboard lead you to give Digwuren a harsher block? Martintg 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. "Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations" Block log showing first block for 3rr.--Chaser - T 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You yourself admit that no WP:3RR violation happened. How then can there have been a *repeated* WP:3RR violation? Digwuren 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I differentiated between the traditional, "more than three reverts in 24 hours" and disruptive edit-warring, which is also prohibited by 3RR.--Chaser - T 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't such differentiation automatically preclude the qualifier 'repeated'? Digwuren 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Read the second-to-last full paragraph of the lead (first full section). The rule permits a lot of discretion, more than most people are aware.--Chaser - T 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When "a lot of discretion" is being used, the user -- in this case, you -- should explain the discretion fully. Using administrator discretion in a non-explainable manner would constitute abuse of administrative powers. Digwuren 15:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I don't think that I used a lot of discretion. I do think a lot of discretion is permitted by the rule. If you're looking for more explanation of why I thought this was disruptive editing when there were less than four reverts, here it is: you and 206.186.8.130 were engaged in a clear edit war during which you used tools to revert and called edits vandalism, which they weren't. There had been prior communication on the talk page, but during the edit war there was none. The only effort came in the form of post-war warnings posted to the IPs talk page, and a comment from the IP on the article talk page. To be fair, I'm not sure you would have seen those comments before I blocked you; I just point it out as the only other effort at communication. In any case, instead of making the fourth revert in 24 hours, reported the IP for 3rr and unhelpfully warned him/her afterwards. When someone is already aware of the rule, I think it's very unhelpful to lead an unknowing editor over the cliff of a 3rr violation and then report them and warn them at basically the same time. It strongly appears to be an attempt to get one editor in the edit war blocked for 3RR and avoid the same block. That's gaming the system.

I accept that you may disagree with my interpretation of the 3rr policy. Other than saying what I've already said, I can only tell you that it is not merely the letter, but also the spirit of the rule that matters. And it's not just me saying it: "a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." --Chaser - T 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, you're still misconstruing my actions. As I already explained, I considered the spurious Nazi reference additions part of the ordinary background vandalism this article (and other related articles) get from time and time. I was quite surprised myself when I realised that on this day, the reversal density had made quite a jump, and I was not aware of 206.186.8.130 having violated 3RR before I took a review of his reversals in order to prepare the administrator's noticeboard report. Originally, the report was intended for AN/I; I went for 3RR instead when I noticed the criteria were satisfied, this being a less fuzzy and thus, clearer to explain violation than a nebulous 'incident'. Similarly, I issued the warning for future reference only when I knew there was basis for it; this particular user does not appear to have made high-volume reversions before, thus, there just wasn't a need -- nor basis -- for it before.

There was no need for further discussion. The non-factuality of the rumours that the bronze bas-relief got symbols removed from it had already been well established on the discussion page. Despite that, the anonymous user mentioned above kept adding the non-factual assertions into the article, without bothering to even try to refute the discussion of non-factuality.

Your assigning to me malicious intent that never was there is a clear-cut violation of WP:AGF. Your attempt to declare a non-3RR violation "a repeated violation of 3RR" defies elementary logic. Your attempts to defend your actions on the basis of the policy allows sanctions (which is incorrect, considering the facts) rather than explaining why the policy requires sanctions is indication of an authoritarian mindset, on par with Cardassian justice system, leading to breach of fundamental justice. I'm considering a request that another administrator review your handling of the situation. Digwuren 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I'm sorry that no one has at least evaluated your unblock request. I've been frequently handling requests in Category:Requests for unblock in the last few days, as have other sysops. I don't know why no one has responded yet.--Chaser - T 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have not violated 3RR. In fact, I played this by the book: I requested administrator assistance as soon as I noticed an unusually high volume of reverts going on in the article. (This article has seen cases of sparse spurious Nazi reference additions before; see [8], [9], [10] for a few examples.) The spuriousness of these particular references is:

1. obvious to anybody familiar with the subject matter, or having read or seen Estonian press during the time of the controversy;
2. obvious to anybody even passingly familiar with bronze-casting technology;
3. discussed on the article's talk page, along with references.

(Actually, I would consider this kind of Nazi-pushing vandalism, comparable to claiming that Charlie Chaplin was a racist because his moustache and cane were similar to those of Adolf Hitler -- a claim obviously ridiculous to anybody even passingly familiar with the facts. Unfortunately, finding a source actually saying that Hitler didn't walk with a cane is rather nontrivial. However, having seen from earlier discussion with administrators on the topic that whether this counts as vandalism, and thus not subject to WP:3RR, is at best debatable, I stayed within limits of 3RR, so this is only tangentially relevant in this block review context.)

Furthermore, the important matter of displaying community consensus on this matter by having the wrong claims removed by multiple distinct users has been satisfied; see [11] and [12] by DLX earlier and [13] by Dc76 later (includes a more thorough rewrite, but removes the false claims in question). The article's history older than a few months provides other examples, which I have not included mainly because the fashion of spurious Nazi references has changed over the months, and thus, old weird ideas are probably not relevant to this unblock request.

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.

Administrator use only:

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=I have not violated 3RR. In fact, I played this by the [[WP:3RR|book]]: I requested administrator assistance as soon as I noticed an unusually high volume of reverts going on in the article. (This article has seen cases of sparse spurious [[Nazism|Nazi]] reference additions before; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=126671495&oldid=126596810], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136685430&oldid=130760555], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136909715&oldid=136901302] for a few examples.) The spuriousness of these particular references is: #obvious to anybody familiar with the subject matter, or having read or seen Estonian press during the time of the controversy; #obvious to anybody even passingly familiar with bronze-casting technology; #discussed on the article's talk page, along with references. ''(Actually, I would consider this kind of Nazi-pushing [[WP:VAND|vandalism]], comparable to claiming that [[Charlie Chaplin]] was a [[racism|racist]] because his moustache and cane were similar to those of [[Adolf Hitler]] -- a claim obviously ridiculous to anybody even passingly familiar with the facts. Unfortunately, finding a [[WP:RS|source]] actually saying that Hitler didn't walk with a cane is rather [[WP:CHEESE|nontrivial]]. However, having seen from earlier discussion with administrators on the topic that whether this counts as vandalism, and thus not subject to [[WP:3RR]], is at best debatable, I stayed within limits of 3RR, so this is only tangentially relevant in this block review context.)''<br /> Furthermore, the important matter of displaying community consensus on this matter by having the wrong claims removed by multiple distinct users has been satisfied; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136862381&oldid=136839848] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136988377&oldid=136988185] by [[User:DLX|DLX]] earlier and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=137680052&oldid=137484200] by [[User:Dc76|Dc76]] later (includes a more thorough rewrite, but removes the false claims in question). The article's history older than a few months provides other examples, which I have not included mainly because the fashion of spurious Nazi references has changed over the months, and thus, old weird ideas are probably not relevant to this unblock request. |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=I have not violated 3RR. In fact, I played this by the [[WP:3RR|book]]: I requested administrator assistance as soon as I noticed an unusually high volume of reverts going on in the article. (This article has seen cases of sparse spurious [[Nazism|Nazi]] reference additions before; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=126671495&oldid=126596810], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136685430&oldid=130760555], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136909715&oldid=136901302] for a few examples.) The spuriousness of these particular references is: #obvious to anybody familiar with the subject matter, or having read or seen Estonian press during the time of the controversy; #obvious to anybody even passingly familiar with bronze-casting technology; #discussed on the article's talk page, along with references. ''(Actually, I would consider this kind of Nazi-pushing [[WP:VAND|vandalism]], comparable to claiming that [[Charlie Chaplin]] was a [[racism|racist]] because his moustache and cane were similar to those of [[Adolf Hitler]] -- a claim obviously ridiculous to anybody even passingly familiar with the facts. Unfortunately, finding a [[WP:RS|source]] actually saying that Hitler didn't walk with a cane is rather [[WP:CHEESE|nontrivial]]. However, having seen from earlier discussion with administrators on the topic that whether this counts as vandalism, and thus not subject to [[WP:3RR]], is at best debatable, I stayed within limits of 3RR, so this is only tangentially relevant in this block review context.)''<br /> Furthermore, the important matter of displaying community consensus on this matter by having the wrong claims removed by multiple distinct users has been satisfied; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136862381&oldid=136839848] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136988377&oldid=136988185] by [[User:DLX|DLX]] earlier and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=137680052&oldid=137484200] by [[User:Dc76|Dc76]] later (includes a more thorough rewrite, but removes the false claims in question). The article's history older than a few months provides other examples, which I have not included mainly because the fashion of spurious Nazi references has changed over the months, and thus, old weird ideas are probably not relevant to this unblock request. |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=I have not violated 3RR. In fact, I played this by the [[WP:3RR|book]]: I requested administrator assistance as soon as I noticed an unusually high volume of reverts going on in the article. (This article has seen cases of sparse spurious [[Nazism|Nazi]] reference additions before; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=126671495&oldid=126596810], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136685430&oldid=130760555], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136909715&oldid=136901302] for a few examples.) The spuriousness of these particular references is: #obvious to anybody familiar with the subject matter, or having read or seen Estonian press during the time of the controversy; #obvious to anybody even passingly familiar with bronze-casting technology; #discussed on the article's talk page, along with references. ''(Actually, I would consider this kind of Nazi-pushing [[WP:VAND|vandalism]], comparable to claiming that [[Charlie Chaplin]] was a [[racism|racist]] because his moustache and cane were similar to those of [[Adolf Hitler]] -- a claim obviously ridiculous to anybody even passingly familiar with the facts. Unfortunately, finding a [[WP:RS|source]] actually saying that Hitler didn't walk with a cane is rather [[WP:CHEESE|nontrivial]]. However, having seen from earlier discussion with administrators on the topic that whether this counts as vandalism, and thus not subject to [[WP:3RR]], is at best debatable, I stayed within limits of 3RR, so this is only tangentially relevant in this block review context.)''<br /> Furthermore, the important matter of displaying community consensus on this matter by having the wrong claims removed by multiple distinct users has been satisfied; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136862381&oldid=136839848] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=136988377&oldid=136988185] by [[User:DLX|DLX]] earlier and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_of_Lihula&diff=137680052&oldid=137484200] by [[User:Dc76|Dc76]] later (includes a more thorough rewrite, but removes the false claims in question). The article's history older than a few months provides other examples, which I have not included mainly because the fashion of spurious Nazi references has changed over the months, and thus, old weird ideas are probably not relevant to this unblock request. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Your email: reply

Thank you for your email, but I decided not to reply to it using the same medium - we have been accused of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry so many times, that I wanted to have all our communication to be in English - and in English Wikipedia.

I do share some of your viewpoints about those things - however, I don't think they are promoting Nazism. They are just filled with petty hatred against Estonia and Estonians. In many cases it is actually getting funny - mostly I must thank Petri for providing the entertainment - "thank" in a highly sarcastic way, of course. I do wonder why he hates Estonia so much, as to claim ridiculous things or provide sources so hopelessly flawed and yet claim they are correct - while himself discarding non-Estonian peer-reviewed scientific magazine as a "highly biased" source.

However, as for your behaviour, I think you should curb yourself a bit. It is not end of the world when Wikipedia has false information on the page for a few hours - or even few days. Try to avoid edit wars, in case of controversial edits, try to discuss on the talk page. If the opponent doesn't reply within reasonable time - well, his tough luck. If the does, then you can point out flaws in his reasoning and try to discuss with them - or take the matter to WP:ANI. In any case, you have tried to resolve the conflict without edit warring. Don't allow yourself to be provoked, that seems to be the tactic of great many such editors.

Now, to a different matter. Perhaps you would like to beta test a small script I wrote, for quick-tagging articles related to Estonia. The script will add additional toolbar tab to article and article talk pages, clicking on it will tag the article with Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia tag - on talk page only, of course. It will not add second tag if it already exists on talk page, both old and new format are recognized. Just add importScript('User:DLX/tagwpe.js'); to your monobook.js - I see that you are using Twinkle, I used its functions quite a lot, so having TW is a requirement. I will write an in-depth description/guide tomorrow or in a few days. Of course, if you have suggestions or bug reports, all those are welcome.

DLX 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)