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

ARBCC notice request

First one

Hi, Please consider delivering and logging the ARBCC template notice to jdey123 (talk · contribs). Not that bad behavior is prereq for these "did you know" notices, but if you wish to know what prompts my request here are some samples

Section blanking

• First blanking of the FAQ
• Second blanking of the FAQ

AGF/Civil

• "...this entire subject is complete, unadulterated bullshit." 17:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Why is there an FAQ section on this talk page, spouting the same propaganda as on the main article page. This is supposed to be a discussion page, no wonder there are massive edit wars when you guys spout bullshit." 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Second one

Sanford123445 (talk · contribs), note the lovely diatribe on the article itself

We might have talked about this before.... the existing process is a bit unclear... do you mind being asked to do this here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Both done. No problem, I forgot about your first message here. Though technically I suppose you could warn and log this yourself, it doesn't have to be an admin.  Sandstein  15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. whether non-admins can do this has been a subject of some debate elsewhere, and doing it this way seems cleaner somehow. Is it OK if I bring future requests here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you made any required notifications yourself. Being an administrator or uninvolved is not needed for this.  Sandstein  19:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it another shot, though if anyone complains (again) will it be ok with you if I reference this thread in the ensuing discussion ?

Yes, though it's not as though my opinion has any particular authority.  Sandstein  19:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Understand, it's just a good second opinion to back up a thread from another admin on my own talk page in case I get accused of bad faith or battlegrounding in dishing up these FYI notices. Thanks for the past assistance, and this thread I think is a wrap unless you have something else to add. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ivan Štambuk is appealing at AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement appeal by Ivan Štambuk. You can respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Summichum AE request

Hi Sandstein,

Reading your recent comment at AE that you were unwilling to take action because the report lacked an appropriate diff of a warning made me recall a recent request at the administrators notice board where an editor presented clear evidence of a 1rr violation in an ARBPIA article and requested that the editor (not the same user as the AE case) receive a formal warning.

Unfortunately despite the clear evidence of a 1rr violation the request was ignored and no warning was given. Now you are saying that a request at AE will be ignored if there is no warning. Put together it appears to be a dysfunctional system. I wonder if you could advise on what course of action should be taken against editors who's pattern of editing indicates that they are ignoring the rules given that (a) admins ignore reasonable requests to issue formal warnings and (b) admins ignore AE requests that lack the requisite warnings. Dlv999 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

All editors may warn others. Being an admin is not required. Requesting a warning at ANI or elsewhere is therefore pointless.  Sandstein  23:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Return of Disruptive Editor onto the Blue Army (Poland) article

Mass removal of information here by an anon IP: [1], and then blatently lying on the talk page about a source that he removed. Evidence here: [2]. The anon claimed " I had a chance to read the "sourced" text on Google Books, and found that nowhere is Gibson called an anti-semite, or that he held a personal hostility towards jews." Googlebooks has the actual quote: ""He [Gibson] stood out for his antisemitism even in an era when genteel disdain for things Jewish pervaded the clublike atmosphere of the foreign service. Upon their arrival in Warsaw, the Yankee diplomats [including,. of course, Gibson] found their prejudices confirmed by an almost physical repugnance towards the city's exotic Orthodox Jewry...to Gibson and his colleagues, the Jews represented antagonists and also a source of sport, and ridicule of Jewish traits, customs, and appearance became the favorite expression of camaderie within the legation."

The arguments and behavior strongly match that of a previous anon who was blocked [3], suggesting it is the same person.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you asking me to do?  Sandstein  16:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ask to have the article semi-protected, but the IP has backed off from removing sourced content for now, and is making some statements that are borderline original research [4] (justifying antisemtici violence because supported the Germans?) that may still be okay.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As expected, the IP has become disruptive. He has become User:COD T 3. He has now decided the change the intro: [5]; it seems obvious he is simply removing a neutrally presented version of events with one that excuses anti-Semitic violence. I reverted him twice but will stop now. I mentioned this in the article's talk page: [6].Faustian (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You make all this sound so sinister. Yes, I did create a profile User:COD T 3… that's not against the rules, is it. Also, you say that I'm using my "own research". Yet, the source I provided is from a book found on Google Books that you yourself used to reference your POV in this article. As a matter of fact here is the link to the page Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pg. 103. --COD T 3 (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reconsider

Hi Sandstein,

Could you please in any possible way reconsider your topic ban towards me? Maybe you could give me a second chance? Jaqeli (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should I do this? What has changed since the sanction? And could you please link to it?  Sandstein  17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone deserves a second chance and I think I deserve it. If I won't keep my word than I won't ask you again. I just need a second chance from you. Jaqeli (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not an argument why I should assess the situation now any differently than at the time at which I imposed the sanction. I can't review the sanction, at any rate, because you didn't provide the link to it I asked for. The appeal is consequently declined.  Sandstein  17:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What link? Jaqeli (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The one to the sanction you were appealing, as mentioned in my message of 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC), above.  Sandstein  18:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not appealing anything. I want you to show some goodwill. At least define my topic ban with "X" months that I will know my topic ban expires on "X" day. Jaqeli (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Sanctions end once they are no longer needed. It's up to you to convince me that this time is now.  Sandstein  19:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that I was too emotional and made a statement what could have been offensive for others. It was my mistake and I recognize this fact and such behavior won't happen again. I regret that I was too emotional back then and made somehow that statement I believe indeed offended many. I recognize that and all I want is a second chance to be able to contribute for common good here on Wiki. Jaqeli (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)