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

Happy Purim!

Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Notification

As you have commented on the issue previously (as evidenced at this page), this is to notify you that I've made a proposal here to formally community ban Mythdon and restrict the number of appeals he is entitled to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Something I noticed

I am new in wikipedia and I have already been through many reports since people have the tendency to report me for almost anything they can think of and in each one I come "clean". Yesterday I found that really weird [1]. This Greek user who was gone for so many days came back only to support another Greek user's report and to help another in an article. I don't know about you but that it would be naive to consider that something "common".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. What do you want me to do?  Sandstein  08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[2]. Where should I go to make a similar report?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that another user's conduct warrants sanctions, you may make a report at WP:AE as per the instructions there. But you should make such reports only in cases of severe or persistent misconduct, or the report is likely to be ignored.  Sandstein  09:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Noone has ever reported you ZjarriRrethues (...have the tendency to report me).Alexikoua (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one has ever reported me then what is this?[3]or this [4]. Sandstein I intend to examine closely past discussions and edits of users and then I'll decide how to proceed--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues just initiated a major deletion barrage in Albanian nationalism [[5]]. He also declared that he is revert-read without discussing and rejecting entire bibliographies in Talk:Skanderbeg, beeing aggresive from his very start of his wikilife.Alexikoua (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I explained thoroughly in the talkpage and I plan to rewrite the whole article. Please don't accuse of things I have never said [6].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read this: Wikipedia:Discussion#Avoiding_disputes (...Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it.), massive deletions without having started a discussion can be easily considered higly disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it weird that IPs without previous edits are reverting me [7] [8]?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You should ask for semi protection.Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At WP:RPP. Please continue the discussion among yourselves elsewhere.  Sandstein  15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned?

Sandstein, I addressed every single accusation. Please read what I said about your decision. I think you are hasting as I still had to finish my defense. How is giving barnstars to users who fight "against EXTREMIST editors" going to be a pattern of battleground? --sulmues (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you said that you are "ready", so I consider your statement complete. We are not here to do any fighting whatsoever, be it against perceived extremists or others.  Sandstein  08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but after that user:Alexikoua made further accusations, and I had to address those as well. And I am very far from doing any fighting: I endorsed through a simple barnstar a user who fights against extremism without giving in and by being civil. That is the opposite of battleground. Please read all the accusations made and my response: I addressed every single one and I am convinced that you will reconsider. --sulmues (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awarding barnstars to editors who battle against other editors, no matter their reason, is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and given that he has already told you "no", I don't see how you can think he will reconsider.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Behavior-related comment collapsed.

Dear Daedalus, could you please let first Sandstein read my defense after user:Alexikoua made further accusations? I am convinced that Sandstein will reconsider: He is a long time admin and won't haste. He had not read my defense thoroughly, but now he may (unless someone else throws additional stuff in). Please feel free to make any considerations in the report. I cannot be topic banned because I awarded a barnstar to three good standing users (user:kedadi, user:aigest and user:Balkanian`s word, (all three of them in good standing), where I say I award you this barnstar because you fight extremist editors. This is a perfect example that I don't use Wikipedia as a battleground. These three editors are the best Albanian editors that have ever participated in the English Wikipedia project and they have been key in creating from scratch many of the 1400+ articles that relate to the Albania TF. Topic banning me from the Albanian topics is equivalent to banning me from Wikipedia but I am very specifically rejecting the accusations. You may take your time to read my defense. I have read very calmly battleground and there is really NOTHING in the accusations to support that I have made any breach of this wiki policy or ANY other policy for that matter. I am really trying to focus on the Albania TF which I intend to raise into a real project (see here). It will take a little time and that project will bring much better articles that are related to Albania. I have already created 66 new articles "please see list" that are Albania related (mostly in the last three months) and you can review my statistics through my user page. This is all I ask: to be left in peace to work in the Albania TF. --sulmues (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you left a template in my talk page. This edit [9] is to clarify that my comment above is Behavior related, not Content related. As a result, you as an admin, might be interested in reading it. I had collapsed it earlier to make it easier for you to manage your talk page. --sulmues (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I've struck my warning.  Sandstein  15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --sulmues (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note I wanted to remind you of this message that I once sent you (see "here"--sulmues (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, you can certainly demand excuses, but nobody can be forced to make excuses, so if I were you I wouldn't bother.  Sandstein  15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your attention needed

Sandstein, I got this highly insulting message from User:Matthead on my talk page [10]. Not only was my edit in good faith but it is also a completely correct one, "West Germany" simply does not exist anymore. If Matthead does not like the name "West Germany" he should nominate the article for a move or a deletion instead of claiming that "West Germany" still exists, it's a complete nonsense. Anyway even if my edit would have been wrong, the accusation of "stalking" and that i make "recommended" edits are very uncivil and so is the threat that I should retire. I request you enforce Digwuren sanctions (civility).  Dr. Loosmark  08:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested Matthead's comment.  Sandstein  09:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark is stalking me, trying to provoke me into responses that can be used for reports at ANI or an admin, pretending he was insulted highly insulted. He has a habit of showing up at articles he has never edited before, to revert me, or for provocative talk. Here are some recent examples:

• 1 February 2010 Sněžka this is english wikipedia
• 16 February 2010 Talk:All-time Olympic Games medal table all the infamous things that the Nazi-Germany did (like for example murdering 6 millions Jews
• 16 March 2010 West Germany rv. ever heard of unification of Germany? West Germany does not exist anymore.
• 2 November 2009 West Germany Undid revision 323369268 ... (reverting my edit. He also edited the talk page, backing up Jacurek.)

In doing so, he follows the example of (among others) User:Radeksz and User:Jacurek. The latter, after having recently been blocked, is block-shopping Are you going to also block Matthead for this personal attack on Polish editor?. As for the EEML recommendations, see e.g. messages 20090713-1736 20090714-0207 20090807-1139 20090809-1626 in which they discuss ways to get me blocked or restricted. Speaking of the EEML, it is rather interesting what they thought of Loosmark when he showed up:

• Radeksz in 20090603-1033: "Loosemark's actually doing quite a good job of keeping the heat on", in 20090611-0841: "Loosemark's pattern looks a lot like Molobo and Poeticbent (as well as other Polish editors like Space Cadet and Witkacy)", and in 20090630-1500 "I emailed Loosmark and told him to be careful".
• Digwuren in 20090603-1245 "If I didn't know any better, I'd suspect Loosmark was Piotrus' sock."
• Jacurek in 20090630-1919 "I think Loosmark may be invited to join us soon"
• Tymek in 20090630-1941: "My hunch is that Loosmark is already here."
• In September, there were threads titled "LOOSMARK should be invited here", " Russavia and Loosmark", ""!!Loosmark needs support ", and also "Sandstein may need support".

In conclusion: Loosmark needs to be sanctioned for repeatedly violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. And, Sandstein, as also Loosmark and the EEML seems to believe you are somewhat sympathetic to them, one wonders what you will do in your capacity as administrator, only able to address conduct issues? I remember that you asymmetrically sanctioned me last year, but not my Polish opponent. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as Jacurek points to on his talk: Loosmark is also suspected of stalking Dr. Dan and/or Skäpperöd, see the recent history of Herbert Norkus. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This does not address your edit cited by Loosmark. "Stalking" is a serious allegation, and is not substantiated by this statement. For this battleground conduct I am now blocking you. The EEML case is over and I'm not dealing with it here. Loosmark's edits cited by you are not prima facie problematic; they appear to reflect content disputes which should be dealt with per WP:DR. The nationalities of all involved, and the silly nationalist content disputes that all of you engage in, are of no interest to me. If there are further problems involving Loosmark they should be reported, with diffs, on the appropriate noticeboard.  Sandstein  22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

Comment collapsed & new section opened.

:::Just out of interest, would Digwuren sanctions (civility) apply to an editor who has already received a warning with regard to incivility and failure to AGF if said editor were to accuse another editor of bad faith editing (stating "your edit is nothing but a provocation." [11]) or to lie about another editor's statements (claiming "I guess the positive thing is at least that you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" as you did the last time I have encountered you." [12], while the actual statement is at [13]) or to repeated accuse another editor of POV pushing (making statements such as "You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [14] and "as you try to POV push into article" [15])? If an editor who had already been told "Any subsequent violation of Wikipedia conduct norms in this topic area may result in sanctions being imposed without further warning." [16] did all three of the above on a single discussion page, would sanctions be in order? And if that same editor who had done all three of those on a single discussion page were to then repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ([17] and [18]) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" [19], would sanctions be in order? Please note that I am unable to notify the editor in question of my comments here because he has requested that I stay off his talk page [20] Varsovian (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, Varsovian's rant has absolutely nothing to do with Matthead's incivility and my request above. I ask you delete it out, he is free to open a separate request to you and then I will reply to his allegations. I won't do it here because then the issue will degenerate into the usual mess.  Dr. Loosmark  12:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Content-related comment collapsed.

Sandstein, I hope you don't mind me posting here. Loosmark, I would be very careful about complaining to any admin over this, as I can not see any discussion on the article talk page, meaning that you could both very well be at fault, and in line for sanctions that you are obviously chasing against Matthead. As to the assertion that your edit was "a completely correct one"; actually it is totally incorrect. As the article states, West Germany was just the common English name for the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 until German reunification. Upon German reunification, the German Democratic Republic (or East Germany in common usage) dissolved itself upon union with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) - this state is now commonly known as Germany (once more). At no stage did the FRG become "disestablished" in 1990; the FRG has been a continuous State since 1949. If Germany was faced with a USSR-type scenario, whereby it dissolved itself and split into 15 independent states, than to say that the FRG was disestablished in 1990 would be correct. But it isn't. It is this very fact that one can say that the German consulate-general in Saint Petersburg was established in 1972, rather than in 1990 when West+East unified into a single state, and rather than in 1968 when the GDR consulate was established in the city. Your scenario would be more correct in the case of North Yemen and South Yemen - upon Yemenite reunification, the Yemen Arab Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen unified into a single state called the Republic of Yemen - both former states ceased to exist. This is, however, not the case with the Federal Republic of Germany. I would suggest taking this to the talk page of the article concerned and thrash it out there, and get consensus on the issue rather than all users simply reverting each other. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't have a discussion about the content dispute here; I am not in the least interested in that. In my capacity as administrator I am only able to address conduct issues, anyway.  Sandstein  09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You attention also needed here

With reference to the above section and Loosmark's statement therein, would Digwuren sanctions (civility) apply to an editor who has already received a warning with regard to incivility and failure to AGF if said editor were to accuse another editor of bad faith editing (stating "your edit is nothing but a provocation." [21]) or to lie about another editor's statements (claiming "I guess the positive thing is at least that you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" as you did the last time I have encountered you." [22], while the actual statement is at [23]) or to repeated accuse another editor of POV pushing (making statements such as "You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [24] and "as you try to POV push into article" [25])?
If an editor who had already been told "Any subsequent violation of Wikipedia conduct norms in this topic area may result in sanctions being imposed without further warning." [26] did all three of the above on a single discussion page, would sanctions be in order?
And if that same editor who had done all three of those on a single discussion page were to then repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ([27] and [28]) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" [29], would sanctions be in order?
One additional point, is describing a post by another editor as a "rant" considered civil? Varsovian (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Too long, too many questions. If you believe there is anything warranting sanctions you may make a report to the appropriate noticeboard.  Sandstein  15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it shorter and ask just one question:

• Loosmark has been warned about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL [30].
• Loosmark accused me of bad faith editing ("your edit is nothing but a provocation." [31]).
• Loosmark repeatedly accused me of POV pushing ("You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [32] and "as you try to POV push into article" [33]).
• Loosmark lied about my posts ("you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard"" [34], my statement is at [35]).
• Loosmark repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ([36] and [37]) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?"

Is any of this acceptable under WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not have the time to investigate what appears to be mainly a conflict about content. Please refer to WP:DR. Certainly accusing others of racism is bad conduct, though.  Sandstein  15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. You're right in that Loosmark and I are in dispute over content; however, my concern regards the way in which he conducts himself in this dispute & how he conducts himself in other discussion. I'll take a couple of days to consider whether to report to the appropriate noticeboard. Would Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement be the right place given that Loosmark has already been warned about WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Matthead

You might want to check out this. NW (Talk) 03:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues sanction

Hi Sandstein, I just saw you let Sulmues (talk · contribs) get away with just a warning because nobody pointed out how he was previously warned. It turns out he was in fact not just warned but actually sanctioned under ARBMAC repeatedly: topic-banned from Kosovo-related articles in August 2009, with subsequent block for breaching the topic ban; renewed block and Kosovo topic ban in November 2009 [38]; placed on civility parole in December, with subsequent block [39]; most recently blocked a week and civility restriction reset per AE thread in January [40]. Surely that ought to be "warning" enough for future behaviour. Would you reconsider in light of this prior history? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that prior history and personally agree with you. However, ArbCom has in a 2009 (I believe) clarification request insisted that the formality of a warning is a strict necessity, so I am bound to adhere to that formality, even if prior enforcing administrators may not have done so. Sorry.  Sandstein  08:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, frankly, I cannot for the life of me believe Arbcom meant to do anything like this. The requirement of "warnings" isn't bound to any particular formality, such as the use of any particular template. A warning is simply any edit that conveys the information that somebody's behaviour puts him in risk of getting sanctioned. An actual sanction, by definition, conveys that same information. Saying: "I am now sanctioning you for your behaviour under this rule" not just strongly implies, but logically entails the information "your behaviour is such that it may get you sanctioned under this rule". As such, it fully qualifies as a warning in Arbcom's sense. – But if it makes you feel better, I'll look through his talk page history to see if maybe there was some uw-balkans that's since been removed... Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above: I checked the Arbcom thread you referred to (assuming it was this one). All I can see here is that Arbs were saying it is not enough to make sure editors are merely aware of the existence of the sanction in the abstract, but they must be given to "know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions". That condition is amply fulfilled in the present case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right. Nonetheless I prefer to err on the side of formality in the case of doubt. You are of course free to impose sanctions yourself if you believe that a warning can be dispensed with under the present circumstances.  Sandstein  09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is probably too close to that silly Arbcom restriction regarding my own admin activity, so I guess I can't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Declined unblock request removed

See here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this person above being permitted to hound another user (User:Mbz1? Will no administrator look into this and handle it appropriately? The 969 person above is not working on making WP a better place but a bitter place for other users.Stellarkid (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And why do you refuse to see that it is wrong Mb has attacked multiple people? Lastly, it is against policy to remove declined unblock requests while the block is in effect. If you disagree, go try to have the policy changed.

I'm not talking to that editor anymore, and I should probably give up on talking to you and your little clique , however, if any of you violate policy, I'm going to report it. If the block expires, I don't really care if the declined unblock request is there or not.

I'm within my rights to report policy violations, just as you are within yours to deny that Mb has done anything wrong despite the stack of evidence right in front of you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry I made that sarcastic comment and vented at you via email about that other editor a few weeks back. As I said previously, I never intended for you to take that comment literally. My use of sarcasm in that email was also most definitely ill-advised and a bad choice on my part. I intend to be much more careful going forward as the drama that resulted from my email certainly didn't help resolve the situation at all. (No one asked me to apologise, I just felt it would be the right thing to do.) --Tothwolf (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)