User talk:MapSGV

MapSGV, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

List of wars involving Libya
Please quit vandalising this article with claims contradicting the main articles. If you seriously believe that Idi Amin won the Uganda-Tanzania War, please raise this claim on the relevant discussion page rather than messing up the list. The same goes for the Libyan-Egyptian War and the Chadian-Libyan Conflict. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Meant to correct only the Libyan–Egyptian War, which was not won by either. MapSGV (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Egypt repelled the Libyan invasion, and furthermore seized Libyan territory. Please see the discussion page. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

About that move you've made
Look on this website and tell me that it's still known as "Concord Bicycle Music". King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:42 EDT
 * WP:CPMOVE. Ask for a page move, because histories of the article are preserved to minimize copyright issues. Cut paste moves are discouraged. — MapSGV (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when?? I couldn't move the page days ago since the article already existed. Have you ever tried moving the article yourself?? And perhaps checking this website too. King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:49 EDT
 * Only admins can do it. Try Requested moves, but until then revert your cut paste moves because they violate copyrights, otherwise I will. — MapSGV (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "when", not "what". King Shadeed February 28, 2018 19:55 EDT
 * You still haven't answered my question. "When" and "what" are two different things. And someone had already started a post in the talk page about the rename a while back where I got the link from. February 28, 2018 20:11 EDT
 * I have described further on your talk page. — MapSGV (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, again. I said "I couldn't move the page days ago since the article already existed." I know I said that. February 28, 2018 20:23 EDT
 * Requested moves is where you need to add your request. — MapSGV (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at Tourism
You are not allowed to edit my RFC. Elektricity (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are a sock but. MapSGV (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

MapSGV you should take such accusations to the SPI, I am sure an admin will check my IP and remove your concerns. Other than that, you should stop personal attacks. Elektricity (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You plan to disrupt Wikipedia until you are blocked? Aren't you done of disrupting Wikipedia for so many years already? Shame on you. — MapSGV (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration
Due to your personal attacks and hostile behavior I have had to create an Arbitration request against you. Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Elektricity (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Read my above comment. MapSGV 19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Sandstein  22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

See this AE thread. This is a normal block, not an AE block. But if the user is unblocked, I anticipate imposing an AE topic ban.  Sandstein  22:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you like to point out diffs of "harassment" because I am the only one who is being harassed with false accusations of sock puppetry so far. — MapSGV (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I have my block appealed at ANI if I write an unblock request? — MapSGV (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)|
 * No. This is a regular block imposed by a single admin. Another admin will read your appeal and decide what to do. --Neil N  talk to me 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think MapSGV is talking about having his block reviewed in ANI, given the many problems with the block. This happens often. Though I believe that sitting out the block until the SPI would be fine but in the same time I don't see a reason why he had to be indeffed even if the filer is not a a sock. Maybe MapSGV can decide. Lorstaking (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I need my block reviewed in ANI because backlog of unblock requests seems too big and I am confident that I was blocked for no reason. — MapSGV (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Appeals are not handled at ANI. If you think Sandstein blocked inappropriately then you can raise it at WP:AN. --Neil N  talk to me 03:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will wait for a few hours and if Sandstein responds then it will depend on his reply whether the block should be up for review on AN or not. Maybe he saw something that none of us have, but I really doubt. Lorstaking (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sandstein you clearly acted on a spurious report filed by an obvious sock puppet in place of treating it as spurious or blocking the filer as a sock. Are you really encouraging people not to return to Wikipedia after they have quit for sometime or act competent? User in question was dealing with a blatant wikihounding sock puppet of a topic ban evading editor. Why you didn't sanctioned the offending users for their incompetence and article disruption while singled out MapSGV who made fair criticism of incompetence that prevailed around him? The reported diffs were nothing but responses to personal attacks made on him and none of his statements constituted even a single "personal attack" let alone "attempting to harass" users as you are spuriously putting. And no, we dont sanction competent editors for disruptive incompetent editors. Lorstaking (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems excessive, don't you think? Might you reconsider the duration?--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As you say, perhaps. But I've never reversed another admin w/o discussion, and I think discussion is warranted. Thoughts?--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The first step is usually discussion with the blocking admin (there's an unblock on hold template for that) but this is already at WP:AN. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm..The block is not as worse as the AN thread made it look like.
 * , despite quasi-agreeing with the signal-to-noise ratio, I will ask you to reconsider the duration of the block (~ 1 week looks okay to me) unless and until MapSVG chooses to refrain from casting random aspersions/PAs on the motives of other users and promises to utilize SPI as the place to discuss socking-activities, rather than the article t/p. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is better to report personal attacks than replying them. But from Sandstein comment you can figure that he believes it's alright to call someone a sock puppet because they have low edit count but they are aware of Wikipedia guidelines, it seems that he would have never acted if I had reported those personal attacks in first place. He is clearly saying that it's fine for others to call me a sock and degrade the quality of arguments but I can't say anything even if next one is a blatant sock. — MapSGV (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm..The socking-stuff is not quite so simple as segregating into black and white.My experience in ARBIPA is both the warring factions of editor(s) that usually shows up at these pages And, I emphasise the word faction  somehow thinks every other editor opposing him is a sock, with the utmost confidence and vigor.And, if you're offended by Sandstein's comment about your edit count, you ought to remember the old saying--People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others. ~ Winged Blades Godric  06:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I know you are angry, but please stop deepening the hole.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You both seem correct and I totally agreed. On ARE, it seems that conduct of all parties is observed, but I was just singled out. I said above that it was better to report the false allegations than replying them, and in addition to that I was just casting my doubt if Sandstein would have taken any action, given his comments. That's all. This all could've been done without any blocking or warning as well. — MapSGV (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All that being said, I agree that the indef was way too harsh, esp. in light of behavior by other editors, who might have provoked the responses.And, I think you would not have much problems in seeking an immediate unblock, if you choose to resolve content-disputes through the ladder of dispute resolution, in future, rather than branding opposing editors as socks, agenda-pushers etc, at the article-t/p.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric  06:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds really true. Thanks — MapSGV (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite the time span of the account, MapSGV still appears to be a newish user trying to get his feet wet. The personal attacks do not seem so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block. I recommend reconsidering. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we forget that Elektricity is under an SPI investigation and is a WP:DUCK account of a topic banned disruptive editor, all I can see is that Elektricity was nitpicking diffs by spamming the word "personal attacks", only to get rid of MapSGV from the articles where he wikihounded him and failed to get his POV accepted after violating copyrights, violating 4RR, misrepresenting sources, forum shopping, and making personal attacks. Such disruption is impossible to ignore, and since MapSGV was defending Wikipedia against such disruption, I really don't see any merit in the block unless rest of the offending users had been also blocked for the same duration because WP:ARE is indeed the place where conduct is not limited with the user who was reported. See this boomerang as the latest example.

Also given the comments by Raymond3023 on WP:AN, it seems that this account always engages in Wikihounding someone, then edit warring with them and ultimately filing spurious report to get rid of the editor. By entertaining such frivolous complaints we are only encouraging editors to misuse noticeboards. In the light of this all discussion, I would instead ask to overturn the block as incorrect. Capitals00 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would decline the unblock request because it does not address MapSGV's own misconduct, as documented in the diffs in the AE request. It therefore does not convince me that the misconduct will not reoccur. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. They should last as long as they are needed to prevent further misconduct. Reducing the block length does not reduce the likelihood that the misconduct will reoccur. I would therefore also not reduce the block duration. The complaints about the misconduct of others are out of place here. Blocks are based solely on the conduct of the blocked user. The conduct of others is irrelevant, see WP:NOTTHEM, but can be sanctioned separately if warranted.  Sandstein   08:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He has already said that he will "report personal attacks than replying them" from now onwards. What else do you want him to say? &mdash;  MBL  talk 08:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, MapSGV wrote above that "It is better to report personal attacks than replying them. But ...". This is not a convincing statement that they understand what they did wrong and that they commit not to do it again.  Sandstein   09:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ... while others are allowed to continue harassing him? Huge drawback is that you haven't sanctioned those who were harassing him and making clear-cut personal attacks. What made you avoid that? Unless you had given same blocks to every one involved in misconduct, your above reply would make sense but you have clearly singled out MapSGV despite he is the biggest victim here. Such unilateral actions are not supported by policies of WP:AE which says "your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." Right now you are making the entire scenario look something like that everyone is allowed to harass MapSGV but he is not even allowed to make criticism of those comments. If you are still not going to sanctions others then you would indirectly agree that conduct of MapSGV was not actually sanctionable. Capitals00 (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:NOTTHEM. This unblock request is not the place to discuss the actions of others. Anybody who considers that admin action is needed against other users is free to submit a separate AE request and I will take a look at it.   Sandstein   09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I had already agreed above not to repeat this misconduct when I said "Sounds really true" to a reply that reads "you choose to resolve content-disputes through the ladder of dispute resolution, in future, rather than branding opposing editors as socks, agenda-pushers etc, at the article-t/p." That means I won't be engaging in incivility. — MapSGV (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN: Block for review
Per the discussion here, I have opened a thread on WP:AN, here is the link of the thread that involves you. Lorstaking (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * and based on what you have imposed it? For removing misrepresentation of sources, copyright violations or something more erroneous? — MapSGV (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See above.  Sandstein   11:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is lacking any sense, because misreprestation of sources, copyvio, sock puppetry were the problems that were being resolved with my efforts. You can't really topic ban somebody for such a good work, can you? You have been misrepresenting AE rules that admins can act against users only if separate report has been filed against them. I am also topic banned from "Afghanistan" despite I never edited that subject. Do you actually ever recognize the problems with your actions? — MapSGV (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That AE request shows an indefinite block, it also states it's not an AE block. It further says nothing about any sanctions. This appears to be an incorrect template.

Can you either respond with more detail or point to the actual sanction, User:Sandstein  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  Speak  13:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like Sandstein changed the block to a ban in response to some of the concerns voiced here (as well as concerns voiced about the edits there). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the extent of dubiousness of 's actions is just too evident here. Not only they seem unwarranted but also out of process and his clear failure to describe his actions futher speaks about it. Lorstaking (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This user created their account in 2014, yet barely had 80 edits prior to last month. Their demonstrated fluency with Wikipedia jargon, and disruptive involvement in so many disputes in such a limited editing time, clearly shows this is an WP:SPA. MapSGV is not being truthful, and the indef block should be reinstated primarily on account of the POV pushing.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah because in these many years he should have been blocked for edit warring, long term sock puppetry, Wikihounding like you but since he hasn't been because he is aware of those violations and that's why he should be blocked! Also noting that his opinions are succeeding on so many disputes, compared to your disruptive POV pushing that is lowly accepted. Lorstaking (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. For a user who has called MapSGV's actions "perfect", I rest my case. The Oxford dictionary will need to update its definition of perfect.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oxford dictionary already agrees with my usage of the word. It's just not right not for someone who engages in copyvio, edit warring, wikihounding, personal attacks and of course you, given your own block log entries that concern such disruption. You can try getting the dictionary changed to support your definitions but it won't really help you reducing the rise of opposition against your POV. Lorstaking (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

ARCA motion
An ArbCom motion that involves you has been proposed at ARCA. For the Cmte, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.


 * For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  17:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Congratulations MapSGV! Capitals00 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Congratulations, MapSVG. &mdash;  MBL  talk 03:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! This entry needs to be modified or struck? That page seems to be showing that original entry is struck  after sanction is lifted. MapSGV (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the poke; I was looking in the wrong place for the sanction :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

 * There's been a motion proposed at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request closed
The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)