User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Question

Sandstein, I have a question, if a user with whom I am banned from interacting makes false claims that a source says something which the source doesn't actually say, who and where can I alert of the situation without breaking my ban?  Dr. Loosmark  14:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't.  Sandstein  15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this make this ban actually counterpoductive in such situation? Meaning that it is better for Wikipedia to have something false presented on its pages than Varsovian/Loosmark informing anybody about it? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If it's important, somebody else will point it out.  Sandstein  17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I sent you an email regarding misunderstanding of the situation. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you what kind of action Molobo wanted to initiate. As I'm currently the only user in a discussion with Molobo and he withdraw his misinterpretation of a source I used, I'm probably the affected user. Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It was about something I observed, nothing about any editor I am in contact with.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally act on interaction ban violations only after a report by the other editor, simply because I do not wish to create additional problems for all concerned. If you believe action is nonetheless warranted, you can make a report at WP:AE.  Sandstein  16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if its sanctionable or not. The interaction ban seems to be a new invention and subject to your interpretation as an admin, so I am unsure of its rules. That's why I ask for clarification. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The point of interaction bans is for the users to leave each other alone. Third parties pointing out alleged interactions is often conterproductive to that goal.  Sandstein  18:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting arbitration enforcement

Sandstein I request arbitration enforcement against user: Varsovian. He made this beyond pale bad faith accusation [1] that I made "deliberately provocative edit designed to trap him". Please note that the only diff which was made by me is this: [2] in which I have simply corrected a link which was broken. (Somebody forgot to put an "<" ). To claim that it is a deliberately provocation is... well out of this world. I request you stop the bad faith accusations by user:Varsovian and enforce the non-interaction ban. Yes, we are allowed to report each other but IMO only if there is really some substance in the claim. Otherwise the report can simply be misused to defame the opponent.  Dr. Loosmark  12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined. Enforcement requests to uninvolvement admins are allowed under the terms of my ban. I'd make an exception only for obviously abusive requests, which the request by Varsovian is not (or at any rate not more problematic than this request by you). Both of you seriously need to stop obsessing about this victory parade, or more substantial sanctions might be needed.  Sandstein  13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not abuse request? ok could you please just tell if you believe that my correcting a link was a "deliberately provocative edit designed to trap him"? I just want to know what am I allowed to do and what not. If now I cannot even correct a link then basically any edit of mine can be claimed to be deliberately provocative or what.  Dr. Loosmark  13:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That enforcement request by the other party has already been evaluated by another admin and I see no reason to do so again. Now please stop arguing about this and edit somewhere else.  Sandstein  13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well fine. It's very stressful for myself that even the most possible innocuous gnomish edit can claimed to be deliberately provocative and I am sorry you can't see that. But anyway I will go to edit something else thanks and bye.  Dr. Loosmark  13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban again I'm afraid

Does this edit violate this interaction ban? Specifically is describing this request as "beyond pale bad faith accusation" violate the restriction against "The other party may not to be informed of, and may not reply to, that request unless asked to by the admin."? Please note that I make no comment on and make no reply to the request made in this edit. Varsovian (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC) On second thoughts, I'll do something constructive instead. I'd like to delete this post from your talk page but I'm uncertain if I'm allowed to delete any content at all from another user's talk page and hence I have only struck it out. Please consider deleting it yourself. Varsovian (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with the preceding, now struck-out text:) See, mutatis mutandis, my reply to the request above. While you are indeed both prohibited from replying to enforcement requests by the other, you are also allowed to make new enforcement requests. I'm resolving the conflict as follows: You are both prohibited from making enforcement requests that allege that an enforcement request by the other violates the interaction ban. Of course, administrators may still sanction, on their own initiative, any abusive or frivolous enforcement request. And my patience with both of you wears thin.  Sandstein  13:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. And thank you for your patience, I'm sorry to have tested it and assure you that I will try much harder in the future. Varsovian (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I mention you (briefly and conditionally)

here.radek (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At the AE report you stated "All other involved editors should do likewise and drop the matter. If no other admin objects, I will close this thread without action.". Because of you saying this I have not made any statement at the report, since I became aware of it only after you made the above statement. Others, however, seem to be unable to let the matter drop and continue making false allegations pulled out of thin air, as recently as few minutes ago. Hence I was wondering if you now intend to let the thread remain open and if so should I make a statement, or will the thread be closed. Thank you.radek (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've closed it now, thanks for the reminder.  Sandstein  13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative question

Hi Sandstein. I am curious-could you tell me on which Wikipedia rule/guideline is the interaction ban imposed by Varsovian/Loosmark based upon? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

John Buscema

Fair enough. It means the article will remain as encyclopedic as it is for a year. That's the important thing. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies any trouble regarding the AE thread. This wasn't my intention. I added a short clarification and have nothing more to add there. As per your instructions I will not ask about interaction ban on AE implemented on Varsovian and Loosmark. Have a good day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rodger Young

See comment on this DYK. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

AE closing

Hey Sandstein,

I opened "my" section at the Varsovian AE at noon, but only now found time to edit and save it. When I hit save, I realized you had closed the thread an hour ago. Can you please look at my entry anyway. Further, you have not addressed the points raised by me and FPaS. Have you not addressed them because you did not find them to be of concern, or have you decided that only Varsovian should be the subject of the thread and that everything else is irrelevant? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your addition, because closed sections should not be edited and discussion that does not relate to the subject of the request (Varsovian) is not helpful at AE. As you correctly surmise, I usually don't even read such tangents. You should not edit AE threads unless you have something useful to say that directly addresses the topic of the request.  Sandstein  15:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have addressed the request directly, diff by diff. I have also outlined the connection between the "further-investigation-needed"-section and the request itself and given the reason why I added this to the Varsovian request instead of opening another one. Independently, another editor in good standing had posted similar thoughts to the same request [3]. If I remember correctly, there were AE cases in the past where investigation was not limited to the initial subject of the thread when discussion revealed that there is an underlying problem concerning several parties? A hint that any additional evidence not strictly regarding Varsovian will be ignored would have been helpful, as obviously neither FPaS nor me posted the additional evidence with any intention to derail the case.

Regarding my (inadvertedly) post-closure request [4], which you undid: That was a maintenance request where I asked for a redaction, and I have no problem with the post being removed but I do uphold the request since it does not matter whether the redaction is performed pre- or post-closure. I understand that you haven't looked at tghis request but only removed it because it was added late? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was that post-closure request that I referred to above: it's off-topic since it concerns Chumchum7, not Varsovian. I personall prefer AE threads to remain focused on one request, but I sometimes also take action against the requesting party if it rapidly becomes clear that their action is also sanctionable.

With respect to your statement concerning Loosmark, Radeksz and Molobo, that is also outside the scope of the AE request concerning Varsovian. It is also probably beyond the scope of AE itself, since allegations of complex multiparty misconduct normally require the investigative capacity of a full arbitration case. I, at least, do not have the time to investigate this sort of vague allegations concerning many users, especially, if as here they do not look very substantial at first glance. I very strongly suggest you do not make allegations of that sort at all except backed up by very convincing evidence and in the course of a dedicated AE or arbitration request. Otherwise you just contribute to the all-round disruptive mudslinging and may be sanctioned for that.  Sandstein  16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The User Rangersarecool

When I got to Wikipedia I was amazed I could edit. With the account Rangersarecool I did some stupid things. I then regretted that and created a new account, Darknesswolfs, to start clean. My friend Foxcow Created User:Rangerarecool1234 vandalized, than admitted it to get me blocked. It worked. But I wanted to be a user on Wikipedia too much. I went nuts on the alts, Shadowwolfs, SecretSpy101, lots of them. My first and only successful was Programmer13. Look at the contributes. I passed a Adoption program, made B-class articles, and became a normal obbsessed wikipedian. I come back here because I want to come clean. I want you to look at the contributes of Programmer13 and tell me if that should be blocked. I used to always worry I would be found out. So here is your chance. Block it. Block my account Programmer101, which I created after I forgot the pass to Programmer13, not quiet as successful. So do what you think is right.

Programmer101^Talk_{What I do} 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)