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

Talk page DRV

For the record, I was not in any way involved with this admin. However, I was trying to reduce the drama they caused. Since they have now decided to protect their talk page, I totally agree that I should not have speedily closed that DRV, so I've reopened it. Your judgement on this matter was sound, so I give my apologies on this one. I did what I thought right on the DRV but I was wrong. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since Spartaz has now undeleted and unprotected the page, I'll retract the request.  Sandstein  13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping he would do :-) I'm glad to see he did it! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Stop challenging Spartaz about his management of his own talk page, or else you will be blocked by me for harassment. Is that crystal clear? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. I got the same dire warning on my talk page Sandstein. Evidently he wasn't following what was going on, and he's come into this ill-informed with a threatening message. Sheesh. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Jehochman) I have no intention to stop asking my fellow administrators to comply with the policies governing the use of administrator tools, including WP:PP, WP:DP and WP:WHEEL. I am glad that Spartaz has, in this instance, chosen to do so, and I bear him no ill will. You may want to reconsider this request because it can be reasonably interpreted as an attempt of harrassment on your part.  Sandstein  15:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so hard with a user who is obviously upset. Our goal is not to drive off users by way of robotic enforcement of the rules. Let him calm down. It's his user page. You had no business undeleting it and pressuring him. I don't even remember if Spartaz likes me or not; one thing I believe very strongly is that users need to be given a lot of leeway in managing their own talk pages. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You threatened to block both myself and Sandstein without knowing what was going on. Then you implied that Unitanode drove the admin away, when he did not. Have a good look at the way you dealt with this yourself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see users doing the equivalent of grave dancing. This is appalling. Leave Spartaz be. That's all you need to do. He's retired, and you can both just leave him alone. Do you want to argue about that, or can you accept it? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the last person to comment on that page was... well, it was you! You added a talk page message asking others not to harass the editor, but nobody actually did this. They only sent messages to him telling him to unprotect his talk page. Fully protecting and deleting his talk page was well outside of policy and a misuse of admin tools. He was about to get hauled before ArbCom. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec2) And you believe that the best way to convince fellow admins of your opinion about how best to deal with upset users is to threaten them with blocks if they do not follow that opinion? Sorry, but I am having a very hard time taking your opinion on this, or other matters, seriously after this.  Sandstein  15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you corner a user on their own talk page and hound them after they've departed, that crosses a line. Being an admin does not create any exemption. If you agree to leave the departed user be, then there is no issue. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He was being asked to unprotect and undelete his talk page. It is totally against policy to delete one's own talk page, and certainly fully protecting it is not allowed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec again) I have no issue with Spartaz retiring, deleting his userspace or blanking his talk page, and would not have bothered him if that had been all he'd done. But administrators, retired or not, upset or not, are at all times prohibited from using their administrative privileges in a manner contrary to policy. That is what Spartaz did by deleting and protecting his talk page, and then undoing my undeletion thereof. I fail to see how asking him to undo these mistakes is in any way objectionable. Jehochman, I consider your threat above to constitute harrassment, and will request arbitration against you if you continue to make, or follow through on, such threats against administrators acting in good faith.  Sandstein  15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noted the threat on ANI as a subthread of Unitanode's block. Honestly, I see that he's trying to help but by making a threat he's made things much, much worse by blundering in like he has. I think we can work this out without ArbCom though. I was personally offended and intimidated by the block threat. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the policy that forbids deleting one's own talk page? Are you familiar with the right to vanish which says talk pages are rarely deleted, and can be undeleted by community consensus? It doesn't say you can undelete the talk page by fiat. It says by community consensus. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Go read that guideline again. It says "Vanishing in this way is not a right. It is a courtesy extended by the Wikipedia community to make it easy for users to exercise their right to leave. Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy". During the course of the discussion, Unitanode had pointed out that Hipocrite left a note on the admin's talk page demanding that Unitanode be blocked. Hipocrite denied this. As the talk page was deleted, nobody except admins got to see the edit.

If Spartaz wanted to retire, there was no need for him to do the delete or protect the page. I note this is not the first time he's done this and later come back. I think you'd better be more careful before you comment in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The policy that forbids deleting one's own talk page is WP:RTV#How to leave, which states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion. In exceptional cases, where there is personal information you wish to have deleted without bringing attention to it by public discussion, you can use Requests for Oversight." Moreover, the deletion violated the policy WP:CSD, because no speedy deletion criterium was applicable to the talk page, and the second deletion also violated the policy WP:WHEEL, which states "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it", bold in original. I had assumed that you were familiar with these quite basic policies.  Sandstein  15:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are so fond of quoting policy, show me the one that says you can undelete a page out of process? What justified your undeletion? Why didn't you calmly raise the matter at WP:DRV and let that take it's course? What was the hellfire urgent need to undelete the page out of process. Your action was just as wrong as Spartaz's. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To prevent unneeded and continued drama and public exposure of the incident triggering the deletion (which I was not involved in). After the second deletion, I did raise the matter at DRV.  Sandstein  15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic dispute involving Tbsdy lives and Hipocrite, please take this elsewhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I denied nothing. Please stop accusing me of things that are false. I suggest you disengage from me - I have not been following you around, TBDY, but the inverse is certainly and obviously false. Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Whatever this is about, it does not seem to belong on my talk page.  Sandstein  15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC) This, I agree with. Jehochman Brrr 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I concur. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Above, TBSDY wrote " Unitanode had pointed out that Hipocrite left a note on the admin's talk page demanding that Unitanode be blocked. Hipocrite denied this." This is blatantly and maliciously false. I will correct him on any page on my watchlist where he continues to cast malicious aspersions about me, until TBSDY either disengages from me or is finally desysoped. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

10:08

Within the archived AfD discussion for 10:08 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/10:08, you mentioned that the content is available. I would like to make an attempt at creating a valid article for the topic, as it is a commonly asked question on the Wikipedia Reference Desks. It is also the first article I ever read on Wikipedia, so I have a sentimental attachment. Thus I am requesting the previously deleted content as a starting point for making a new article. Thank you. --LarryMac | Talk 22:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfied at User:LarryMac/10:08.  Sandstein  22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Asmahan Case

A request for ammending the Asmahan case has been filed by User: Nefer Tweety as it had been recommended in the Enforcement request that you had closed. Please take a look on the Ammendment page.

It seems that you have also closed a second Enforcement request filed by the same user on the same subject. While I agree that it seemed to have been a rushed filing on their part, I do not agree that the warning you gave them was justified. How would NT know if their case was actionable or otherwise without filing, especially given the fact that you had made no mention on this Talk page of the "per page" qualification in the remedy, when you defined the "revert" that would have been punishable? You too had missed that part in your definition, so why are you giving NT a warning just for filiing? User:Supreme Deliciousness has already filed numerous Enforcement requests based on the Asmahan case that have proven to be not actionable. Have you warned him for filing too? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in this case or its amendment, sorry. That's a matter for ArbCom. I don't see the point of your second question.  Sandstein  07:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare

Please take time to review this case, and this request. Brews sanctions have been relaxed several times, and enforcement was interpreted narrowly: if Brews mentions physics in his edits, he is out of line. So long as he doesn't, or does so only obliquely, he is ok. He is a professional physicist after all.Likebox (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which case and request?  Sandstein  14:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See here Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is for ArbCom to review, not for me. I am neither interested nor involved in that issue.  Sandstein  17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you recently made an enforcement decision regarding the case. I was just suggesting that the enforcement on Brews ohare was interpreting his topic ban slightly too broadly, given the previous decisions regarding the case, and considering the context of the enforcement request, it might be better to not take action at this time. Pay attention to the recent link offered by Count Iblis, it shows the Tznkai has relaxed the general ban to just apply to narrow physics, not this stuff. And sorry, that IP was me.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit does not show this, see my comment on the blocked user's talk page. Nothing of the above makes me reconsider my assessment of the enforcement request WP:AE#Brews ohare.  Sandstein  19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that reasonable people can have different opinions about this, but I ask you to try and find a second opinion, and to relax the action.

The reason is that I have recently brought up an ArbCom request to have Brews and Tombe unbanned (I did not know them or work with them before taking this step, except that I had some mild ordinary disputes with Brews in previous years). This ArbCom motion led to a fury of activity, and much administrative action directed at myself, and Brews felt the need to comment in my defense. The comments did not have anything to do with physics, and Tsnkai had narrowed the scope of the actionable ban considerably.

Please, discuss this matter with your peers, and see what they think. I hope you reconsider, but if not, good luck with everything, and no hard feelings.Likebox (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

These are, again, not meritorious arguments. In the cited diff of 19 January 2010, Tznkai says that "I intend to lift my supplemental ban after brief discussion at AE" (emphasis mine). This discussion does not appear to have taken place. Instead, the restriction remains logged at the case page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. As far as I can tell, therefore, Tznkai's discretionary sanctions remain in place unchanged. Even had they been lifted, the original topic ban would still have been violated for the reasons I noted on AE.

I am really not interested in why anybody in this dispute did anything. I'm just an administrator enforcing applicable arbitral sanctions in what I hope is an as impartial manner as is possible. If you think the underlying sanctions are wrong, you must appeal them to ArbCom, not to me.  Sandstein  19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent)Yes, yes, I understand the letter of the ruling, but you must not be so inflexible when applying Wikipedia's rules, or when enforcing decisions. There were previous decisions, such as whether adding a mathematical physics category to a mathematics article is OK, and it was decided that in this case yes it is Ok. There was a question about whether he could comment on administrative actions of various sorts and yes that was Ok. There was a motion passed unananimously which allowed him to discuss physics for the sake of diagrams on his page, and the consensus of current editors who followed what was going on is that no violation happened.

This is why I am asking you to reconsider--- not because you aren't right in some sense, but because you are not familiar with the case in all its details. That is not your fault, of course, but it leads to some friction, and there is no reason for that. Please try to be flexible on a case by case basis, and to follow consensus closely. But, anyway, really, reasonable people can disagree, and no hard feelings.Likebox (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Since you have involved yourself in the discussion over NSH001's comments at Talk:Carlos Latuff and issued him a warning about Arbcomm for soapboxing, perhaps you would like to issue a warning regarding this clear BLP violation on the ANI discussion board by Mbz1? Tiamut^talk 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure - where is the BLP violation in that edit?  Sandstein  22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I linked to wrong diff. Here it is. Tiamut^talk 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed problematic. I am inviting Mbz1 to comment on why that would not be a severe WP:BLP violation.  Sandstein  22:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights its working definition for antisemitism drawing comparison of the contemporary Israeli policy to that of the nazis is an example in which antisemitism manifests itself. latuff has many cartoons that are doing just that. his cartoon that won the second prize in the Holocaust denial cartoon conference in Iran is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. That's why I said what I said, about the man and I am not going to revert myself, even if I am blocked. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to article about latuff from conservapedia. As I said on AN/I I do understand that wikipedia is not censored, but I strongly believe that, if it is not censored to host hate propaganda antisemitic cartoons, the cartoons and their creator should be called with their real names. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, neither your original research nor Conservapedia is a reliable source for calling a living person "an anti-Semite and the Holocaust denier" on any page of Wikipedia. This is only allowed if it is backed up by multiple independent reliable sources. Moreover, your habit of referring to Carlos Latuff in small type leads me to believe that you are mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia. You are blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:BLP and also warned about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions in the event of continuing disruption.  Sandstein  00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)