User talk:Laszlo Panaflex/Archive 2

Reverting undiscussed moves

Re: Your recent comments at Talk:Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860). If you wish to revert a recent undiscussed move (as was the case for this article), you do not need to go through the full RM process even if the move requires an admin (per WP:RMUM). You can propose the move in the Requesting technical moves section of the RM page. — AjaxSmack 16:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for staying on top of this, Laszlo Panaflex. I've found that there have been so many seriously contentious moves, refactoring, and blanking of content on articles on anything surrounding Eastern European Slavs since the recent events in Ukraine that it's impossible to stay on top of the mess being made. There's been a tidal wave of new POV warriors, IP hoppers, and SPAs who've been unable to get a look-in on the current affairs articles who are using the opportunity to create havoc with established, consensus-based articles that I can't stay on top of the editing chaos. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does get frustrating. I've been dealing with a wave of Mongolian editors/puppets that more or less put me off WP for a while. Most of them have been blocked over the past few days, thankfully. I should not have even gotten involved in this current KR dust up at all. Just that every time I see a newly created red-linked editor EW'ing without explanation I'm compelled to respond. Sigh, also (!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 steps forward, six steps back. I wish I didn't care... but, until dementia wipes my woes away, I am compelled to persevere despite common sense. Don't let the hordes get you down. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just learned that over 50 sock accounts leading back to one disruptive user were just blocked. Horde, indeed. No wonder I'm feeling so worn out. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a huge number reported that haven't even made it to CU due to the sheer volume. The Ukrainian crisis + Russophobes +Russophiles +Western Asian POVers +anti-US +anti-anti-anti have swollen into a veritable tidal wave. As Daggett would say, "This is nuts!" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Do I really have to remind an experienced editor of WP:TPG? W C M_email 18:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not move your comment. But you should. Please do not bleed one discussion into another just because you don't like where it is going. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, you did move my comment, which was related to the wording proposed. Do it again, the next stage will be WP:ANI and this is a stupid thing to force a block over. Your choice. W C M_email 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the diff. I commented and said you should move it. TaivoLinguist moved the comments, not me And you are accusing him of WP:DICK? Please stop with the WP:NPA. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, entirely my fault, clicked on the wrong talk page. W C M_email 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same old stuff

Iryna Harpy: Oh, ma chère ... ;), regarding your new friend, you may want to see his talk page history, where he routinely removes the long series of complaints, warnings, and notices left there, and search his ANI history, (especially here, and also here, though there is much more). His most recent visit provoked calls for a boomerang and prompted three admins to leave him warnings. This current dust up continues a tiresome pattern. Cheers, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy about the short block but, as Drmies noted, I guess that's one for an ANI when (not if) TCL starts aggravating and attacking other editors upon his return. I'll be watching like a hawk, but I truly detest the fact that regular editors are expected to put up or gather multiple diffs over 20+ ANIs in order to create a case.

Thanks for reminding me about Dr F... Gosh, I'm missing that guy so much already. I can't wait for him to crop up as SOCK again... That allows for at least up to 2 days of not having to put up with his weirdness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the reason I avoid him is that gathering evidence for a case would take hours. One editor on the first ANI case I diffed above compiled a good list, but that was months ago and there is much more now. I didn't figure Drmies would extend the block, but I'm hoping s/he and the other two admins who warned TCL recently will be keeping a close eye on him when he returns. That happened recently with another of our mutual friends, Alexis Ivanov, who received a lengthy block after ignoring warnings. Such a nuisance... Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, regular editors and admins have been around long enough to know that initially aggressive editors change their approach quickly once they get a sense of how Wikipedia works. The calibre of the aggression is an indicator in itself. Those who persevere (Alexis Ivanov being an excellent case in point) have problems with their social skills, making them a liability rather than asset to any degree. It isn't as if it weren't a battleground trying to stay on top of good faith-ers and POV-ers making a mess of articles, categories and templates on a daily basis. Oh, what grief we must endure, my dear! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had enough?

I have. Drmies‎ Iryna Harpy clpo13 Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it looks as if there's an abundance of editors and admins who've had enough... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]