User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/June

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See how good I am, it is about the time to lift my topic ban :)

Hi Sandstein, here's my real life story that proves how fully I comply with my topic ban. Maybe after reading my story, you will find it possible to lift my ban now, a month before it expires:)
Few days ago my husband and me were on United flight 59 flying to Kona. The pilot offered passengers a problem to solve. We were given the time we took off, the distance we need to fly to get to Kona, the speed of the plane and the speed and direction of the wind. We should have calculated the time we would reach half way. Flight attendants collected our solutions, and in half an hour the pilot declared the winner on the radio. The winner was me. I was off only 15 seconds. Everybody turned toward me, smiled and waved at me. I was so proud of myself. After all there were 200+ passengers on that plane, and I won. I was making fun of my husband, who was off 30 minutes because he never bothered actually to make the calculations, and just came up with a first number that came to his mind. Then flight attendant brought me my prize - CD with Hawaiian songs, and it was the time my husband was making fun of me. He told me: "You may not have this CD, you should give it to me." "Why?" I asked, and he explained to me: "Look at the name of the singer. His name is Israel. You are under broadly construed topic ban on everything connected to Israel." I looked at CD and saw the name written there: Israel Kamakawiwo'ole. Without any arguing I handed my CD to my husband complying with my topic ban :).
Sorry for the long story. So, would you lift my topic ban? Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, because this story does not relate to your on-wiki conduct, which is the reason for your topic ban. What you do offwiki is not covered by or relevant to, the ban. You are also not banned from Israel (the country or the name), only from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Sandstein  18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was good on-wiki too, wasn't I? :) Anyway... Warm regards--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, like adding to Karl Marx's article that Marx is the link between Luther and Hitler.Abisharan (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varhaug Idrettslag

Hi, I should be grateful if you would take a second look at this close, please? I guess that there is little practical difference between 'no consensus' and 'keep' but I think that this should have been closed as the latter. The nomination was a procedural one and there was just one delete !voter. He made his comment early in the piece, when the page looked like this, and before the page had been developed to show norability and before sources were added. Consequently, his statement ""Sources found" - I don't see any in the article." is clearly in error. Against this there were four editors who argued that notability had been established. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right; amended.  Sandstein  19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

I would like to request that the topic ban be amended to allow for reverts of unambiguous cases of vandalism. For instance, the page of Mahmoud Abbas has had the name vandalized today and had yet to be corrected after more than 10 hours from the initial edit. I would restrict myself to only unambiguous cases. nableezy - 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) (somebody watching your talk page has since reverted the vandalism, all the same I dont see my request as unreasonable, unless of course you would like me to report each case of vandalism I see here and wait for somebody to remove it) nableezy - 18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the thread resulting in the topic ban.  Sandstein  19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
All right, here. You, in placing the topic ban, wrote that Reverts of vandalism and BLP violations are not excluded from this ban. Truthfully, I was tempted to just ignore the vandalism bit because I thought it would be funny if somebody blocked me for reverting vandalism, but I thought it might be wise to do this the proper way. nableezy - 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is an absolute absurd not to let editors, who are topic banned to remove clear vandalism. Do vandals have more rights than we do, or it is just another humiliation to add to topic bans?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, thanks for the link. The request to amend the topic ban is declined because it is often contentious what should and should not be considered vandalism, reports to WP:AIV are often dealt with in a matter of minutes, and your topic ban will expire in 15 days anyway.  Sandstein  20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, though if you restricted it to "unambiguous" cases of vandalism, as the diffs linked above were, I dont think that would be contentious. But that is fine. Cheers. nableezy - 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Then is an edit like this also a topic ban violation? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The whole of that article is not within the A/I conflict, there is a section that is. I did not touch the section that is. nableezy - 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, if you continue to insert yourself into discussions concerning I/P conflict-related sanctions which do not concern you, I will consider this a violation of your own topic ban and sanction you accordingly. This is your only warning. Now would be a good time for you to quit this discussion.  Sandstein  20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are mistaken

What you see are uploads that have been uploaded by the owners and in must cases are old and hace not yet been changed. This is why Commons has the catagory. It simply shows what exists. There are also mistakes made from flicker uploads. That may or may not be innocent but is still not to the policy of Wikimdedia Commons- which states; The two accepted Creative Commons licenses at Wikimedia Commons are "Attribution" (

This template should only be used on file pages.) and "Attribution share alike" (
This template should only be used on file pages.) in every published version. See Commons fist steps.

The Policy of Wikipedia is to not use any image of questionable license or fair use if an available free image is available. There are, but no one likes those. The two imgaes in question and one that you have linked to the article were not uploaded by the copyright holders and are in dletion debate.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what you are saying. What is the problem? That you believe CC-BY-2.0 is an invalid license for Wikipedia, or that the images were not released as such by the copyright holder?  Sandstein  18:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Counter

FYI, the edit counter you listed on your user page is broken/stale. The link should be http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Sandstein&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia. I didn't want to be too bold and update your userpage for you, so sorry to leave some of the work to you! Good luck! Jess talk cs 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards,  Sandstein  18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ta

just 1/anothe ex:"I have diagnosed Sven with w:Münchausen syndrome and I find indef-block justified.--Vahagn Petrosyan 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[1][de meta-guysresignd-unde presurfromEPet.al?[dey'dme blokd asSven70 on wp jan2009 metryin2makmycase:(

  • admits'imslf:"Because typing is hard! Duh. :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC) [2]
  • Thank you for your input, but we currently have 101 admins here. We are capable of resolving the issue without interference from outside. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC) [3]
  • " Add to this occasional drama queen outbursts in Beer Parlour like this.
   Please, take up another hobby. Origami, for example. --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • [4]as aside[jew-rant];or":#No Gypsies
   +       
  1. No Puerto Ricans"[5]>en.wt,nice place uh?

---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is incomprehensible. If you mean to complain about something that happened on Wiktionary, I can't do anything about what happens on that sire, as I'm not an admin (or user) there. Sorry.  Sandstein  18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A note

It would be kind of you, when, even if not giving a fig to what I say (I think at all), closing my appeal, you'd have warned me on my talk-page. Note this please, as an admin, because I see I am not the only one having this kind of impression of your behavior towards other editors. Regards Aregakn (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Warn you about what?  Sandstein  18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The "outcome" of it. Aregakn (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The lack of success of your appeal does not require a warning, since it does not require you to change your conduct.  Sandstein  21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Tha lack of attention to the case does not require a closure but a notice on the admin boards. And this was a note of your approach to editors in general and not a warning. If you're not interested in how the editors might see you due to your conduct, well, "c'est la vie". Aregakn (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket

You may want to check this user's talk page. Since your block has gone up, they have made repeated implications, and now outright statements, that they have no intentions of ceasing or amending this behavior. If that is the case, I think a permanent block may honestly be called for. Just read over the comments and see what you think, make your call. I defer to you as the blocking admin. - Vianello (Talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify my point a little: If this behavior is unacceptable and warrants a block, then if it is going to continue in perpetuity, indefinite blocking makes more preventative sense than repeated re-blocking for re-occurring altercations. I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm just trying to make my reasoning clear, because I am not always good at that. Attempts to explain this problem to the user were met with a "not interested" and a questionably useful removal of the comment. - Vianello (Talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I've kind of been chatting with User:Hell in a Bucket, and I just want to, for what is worth, agree with Vianello. I tried to explain to him why he was banned, since he seems to think it is some plot of User:BlackCab, and his responses were kind of telling. I pointed out that his actions were obviously a complete violation of WP:PROFANE and WP:CIVILITY, but he doesn't believe it. This may be just my personal psychoanalysis, but he is simply refusing to accept responsibility for his actions. I explain to him that he was banned solely for his own actions here[6] and here[7] and User:Hell in a Bucket here[8] and here[9] immediately tries to shift the discussion onto the actions of User:BlackCab and their editing dispute, which is irrelevant to his block. I finally asked him, flat out, if he understood that his block had been given independantly of BlackCab's editing[10], and his response is again to shift the blame onto BlackCab.[11] Regards, --Pstanton (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read the talk page, and do not believe any action is necessary unless the problem reoccurs after the block's expiration.  Sandstein  07:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, I agree with your prudent course of action. This editor has also contributed very substantially to the encyclopedia. We should indef when only absolutely necessary and when we are certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the user is irredeemable and a net loss to the project. These points have not been adequately addressed at present. This would invite unnecessary drama. Thank you Sandstein. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the second time just recently I've seen arguments made that free exemptions to the rules should be a reward for contribution. I cannot help but find this somewhat disturbing. But that aside, I don't think Sandstein's call is off-base. While I am confident it will re-occur, considering the user has essentially promised it will, who knows? The possibility does exist I'm dead wrong and this will never happen again. So, a wait-and-see does seem fair enough to me. Thanks for listening, as well as to the outside commentators for their opinions whether I agree with the entirety of them or not. Further debate/opinion may crop up here, but to avoid spamming Sandstein's talk overmuch I'm going to bow out of further commentary on my part at this point. - Vianello (Talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much Vianello for your nice comments and I also thank you for agreeing to disagree in a very fair fashion. I also echo your feelings about spamming Sandstein's page, so I am in a hurry to also exit from here. I am not familiar with the present case but as regards your comments about rewarding bad behaviour for contributions, rest assured that I share your concern on the matter. But I do not think that in this case the violations were egregious enough to justify an indef. Anyway, mindful always of spamming I will exit on that point thanking Sandstein for his hospitality on the way out. Take care all. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Vianello, I can see how much you agree with sandstein based on your posts above, I do however understand you are also a admin so I do appreciate not being block happy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

What am i to do if an editor removes a POV tag from an article without waiting for discussion? And then posts this when i ask him to self revert? Some reading material countering denialism POV tags are not to be removed until a consensus is reached right? mark nutley (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, so the normal WP:DR rules apply, only more so because the article is on probation. I recommend that you focus on discussing the contested statements themselves, and the sources that do (or do not) support them, rather than on tags, which are frankly not very helpful.  Sandstein  13:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Uneven rules (or application thereof)

I found it interesting, given your statements as to transparency, that since then a sysop who lifted a block early did so on the basis of private emails that followed public communications. When I asked him to make public the email content, redacting anything private or sensitive, he refused, saying there was no requirement that he do so, and he was not so inclined, and if I disagreed I could bring him up to a noticeboard. I found that not only oddly rude, but also way different than the approach you suggest is necessary for transparency. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be something that needs to be discussed with the other admin, not me, I'm afraid.  Sandstein  05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Tx -- so there is no overarching guideline that binds all sysops to act in a consistent manner in this regard?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge.  Sandstein  05:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahah. Since sysops on either side of the issue tend to speak of their position as rooted in wikiguidance, I had assumed otherwise. Got it -- whatever the individual sysop prefers. At least I have a better understanding. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

AA2

Hi!
As an admin, you're sometimes active on AA2 enforcement cases; in this regard, I think you should be aware of this.
Personnaly, as an admin on WP:fr, I think it's very interesting.
Regards,
Sardur (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think it's relevant to this project unless there has been coordinated editing on en.wp. In that case, a request for arbitration or arbitration enforcement should be made on en.wp.  Sandstein  08:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User page Tarun Marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

Sir,I have sought deletion review of my captioned article on 26.05.2010.==Deletion review for Page name Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Page name Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tarun marwaha (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't. I can't find any entry on WP:DRV concerning that subject.  Sandstein  08:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir,I am not yet familiar with WP methods.I have certainly sought a review by adding the required tag ,stated reasons and informed you.I do not know how to get an entry made on WP:DRV.Please assist me in this matter.Please forgive my short-comings.Thanks.Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The instructions are at WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review. Which step do you have problems with?  Sandstein  05:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion on my talk page

Is incorrect.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent sanctions

Here you said "Please add a statement to your AE comment in which you provide the diffs of any current edits by which Dr. Loosmark (in your view) calls you a racist, and also diffs for the edits by which Piotrus (according to you) engages in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. If you do not do so within an hour of your next edit, I intend to ban you from EE-related AE discussions to which you are not a party, and possibly apply further sanctions." You then said here "You have not provided the diffs to back up your allegations, as requested, within an hour of your next edit. This leads me to conclude that you are unwilling to comply with the community's expectation that allegations of serious misconduct may not be made except accompanied by clear proof in the form of diffs." Could you please be so kind as to provide me with a diff of the edit which you refer? As is shown by my user contribution history here, in the time between your two posts on my talkpage my only contribution to WP was on my own talkpage (here). In that post I state that I would not be online much in the next few days, would be able to post only via my iphone, that I would be happy to provide diffs with regard to Loosmark and clarify what I meant with regard to Piotrus. As it appears that you have sanctioned me in clear violation of your own requirements, I request that you lift the sanctions that you have imposed and strike out the relevant post on my talkpage. Should you so request, I will be happy to provide diffs in which Loosmark accuses me and other editors of being racists and diffs which prove that the discussion in which Piotrus was engaged was about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. I'm not going to request that you reply to this within one hour of your next edit, but I would appreciate a reply when you can find the time. Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, after I asked you to provide the diffs within one hour of your next edit here, you made an edit to your talk page here and then did not provide the diffs I requested within one hour of that edit. I then sanctioned you for failing to provide the requested diffs in a timely manner (which, after more than a week, you have still not done). Consequently, your request to lift the sanction is denied.  Sandstein  08:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is an interesting position that a post on my own talkpage in which I explain that I will be able to provide you with the diffs you request (but not within the timeframe you request them) is in fact an edit. It is also a position which somewhat contradicts the statement which you made here in which you state that "He has indicated on his talk page that he is unable to edit until Thursday,". However, I am happy to provide the requested diffs with regard to Loosmark.
Here is one aimed directly at me “And it was by another anti-Polish editor who started to edit these topics recently.”
here is one (for which you gave him this warning) “The anti-Polish lobby … The reason of this complaint is clear, to punish every admin who dares to oppose their continues attacks on Polish editors.”
Here is another one “Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors (even as you assured everybody "you don't have anti-Polish feelings")”
Here “I only said that suggesting that those for whom English is not a first language refrain from voting can be vied as a bit racist.”
Here “As for for accusation of racism, I have not "accused" anybody, I have only said that requesting people for whom English isn't the first language to not vote here can be viewed as a bit racist.”
Here “I will repeat it for the third time: that comment can be viewed as a bit racist. So what are going to do now?”
I drew your attention to the last three of the above comments here
An uninvolved editor commented here “I find it hard to see how this edit is not describing another editor as "racist". Certainly it is describing another editor's actions as "racist".”
Would you like me to provide the ones with regard to the edits by which Piotrus (according to me) engages in a discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish? Varsovian (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Much as I dislike Varsovian and his behavior on wikipedia, I have never considered him a racist. If I would think that he (or whoever else) is a racist I'd immediately report him to ANI. His continuous claims that I have called him a racist are starting to get beyond boring. The first diff above is from October 2009 (!) and I wasn't even talking about Varsovian. It was about the time when user Kurfust referred to me as "an ugly troll who raised his head again". For the second diff I was already warned (but I did not say anybody is a racist). Third diff is from an argument I had with Dan when he made a comparison between Chopin seeing himself as a Pole and a person seeing himself as cocker spaniel. It looked pretty bad to me, however Dan later explained it was based on a movie or something and I accepted his explanation. But again 1) I did not say Dan is a racist and 2) nothing to do with Varsovian. The last 3 diffs he presented above are from beginning of March and again having absolutely nothing to do with Varsovian. Well other than he immediately tried to canvass the editor with whom I had a small argument to fill Wikiquette alert about me. [12]  Dr. Loosmark  09:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Any change made to a Wikipedia page is called an edit, whether to a talk page or an article. Varsovian, the reason why I asked you to provide the diffs within an hour of your next edit was to compel you to provide the diffs as soon as you are editing Wikipedia in any form (no matter whether by iPhone or by any other means), so as not to produce undue delays: as I said already on your talk pate, serious accusations of this sort must be accompanied at all times by diffs, or at least such diffs must be supplied as fast as possible.
In any event, you are both wrong. Varsovian, the statements by Loosmark cited by you do not support your contention that Loosmark "called you" a racist; accordingly, it is unacceptable to make such accusations against him, especially without diffs, which is why your sanction requiring you to provide diffs in all such cases is maintained. Please also do provide the diffs concerning Piotrus; my request that you do so remains outstanding since May 28.
And Loosmark, these same statements of yours ("can be viewed as a bit racist") can very readily be understood in the sense that Varsovian seems to have understood them, i.e., as accusing him of racism, which is also patently unacceptable. If you disagree with others, you can very well say so without taking recourse to such loaded words. In the Eastern Europe topic area particularly, editors must remain perfectly civil and collegial at all times. Be warned that I will sanction you without further warning if any other disruption of this sort is brought to my attention.  Sandstein  21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that "can be viewed as a bit racist" was not directed at Varsovian at all (he didn't even participate in that discussion) but at another editor when he said sth like that the editors whois first language is not English should not vote in a discussion to rename an article. And I made it clear that I don't consider that editor a racist. But anyway that happened more than 3 months ago and since that was seen as problematic I have not repeated that anywhere and I don't intend to in the future either.  Dr. Loosmark  22:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I understood that an edit was a change to content and a post is an addition on a talkpage. It could be understood that you somewhat agree with me, given that you said here "He has indicated on his talk page that he is unable to edit until Thursday,". I note that my understanding of which word means is confirmed by what can be found at the top of this page: it states
"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: "
As for the diffs regarding Piotrus, would you mind if I provided quotes from the discussion which Piotrus was engaged in rather than quotes? Unfortunately the discussion has become rather difficult to follow, what with people replying inside other people's replies and so on. The important thing to show is what was said in the conversation, not by whom it was said. Please note that I did not state that Piotrus claimed Chopin should be described as wholly Polish, merely that he was engaging in discussion about that topic. I understand that your request has been outstanding since 28 May but please note that I have only be active on WP for one day since then (apart from two short posts) and have not made a single edit to any article. Varsovian (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide diffs of edits by Piotrus that substantiate your claim that he was "engaging in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish".  Sandstein  05:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you want diffs that show Piotrus was engaging in the discussion or that the topic was "whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish" or both? Do you have no comment on why your own talkpage refers to 'posting' on a talkpage? Varsovian (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You said that Piotrus "is within one year engaging in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish". Please provide whatever diffs of edits by Piotrus you believe are necessary to substantiate that claim, i.e., that Piotrus discussed that subject in violation of his topic ban. As to Wikipedia terminology, "edit" and "post" are synonymous in that every post to a talk page is also an edit of that talk page.  Sandstein  07:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
[13] [14] [15] [16] Given that I have now provided you with diffs showing Piotrus engaging in a discussion as to whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish (note that Piotrus does not say that the subject should be described as wholly Polish and that I did not state that he did) and with diffs which you state "can very readily be understood in the sense that Varsovian seems to have understood them" and that you have stated that my post on my talkpage was a post ("every post to a talk page"), as well as being an edit in your opinion, I request that you lift your sanctions. Varsovian (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the diffs. They show that Piotrus discussed the question of Chopin's Polish or French nationality on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, a page that is not covered by his topic ban, as per this decision. No sanctions against Piotrus are therefore required.
Your sanctions are maintained. The above discussion, replete with wikilawyering about terms like "edit" and "post", illustrates that they remain required: You have not only made serious accusations against Dr. Loosmark and Piotrus that I consider unfounded, but you also failed to immediately accompany these accusations with pertinent diffs even after being asked to. I will reconsider the sanctions on your request after no earlier than six months, and may lift them if your editing has been unproblematic until then. I will not hear any earlier appeal directed at me, but you remain free to appeal to your sanctions to the Committee ot the community, as per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  09:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please be so kind as to provide a diff in which I state that Piotrus was posting in violation of his topic ban? I made no such claim. Please judge me on my words, not what I do not say.
I am not wikilawyering about the meaning of words: I am using them in the precise meaning which they are used. I believed in good faith (and still maintain) that a post on my talk page is not an edit. Your comment about wikilawyering suggests that you may well be failing to assume good faith. Just ask yourself this: why would I have wanted to make an edit which would enable you to invoke your sanctions when I could simply have waited until I had proper access to a computer which would enable me to demonstrate that Loosmark had made the comments which he made (or at the very least diffs which "can very readily be understood in the sense that Varsovian seems to have understood them") and that Piotrus engaged in the discussion which he did? I ask that in light of the above you reconsider your stance. I really don't want to waste people's time by appealing this to the Committee to the community. Varsovian (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit, already provided above, constitutes an accusation by you that Piotrus violates his topic ban, irrespective of the words employed. Claiming otherwise is yet more wikilawyering, and I believe that it would be in your own best interest to drop this now. Concerning your sanction, I do not have anything to add to what I said above.  Sandstein  10:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
So regardless of the words I actually employed, you maintain that stating that Piotrus engaged in a discussion which he clearly did is accusing him of violating his topic ban. And regardless of the words which are actually used at the top of your talkpage, a post on a talkpage is actually an edit. OK, could you please be so kind as to direct me to the place you think most suited to appealing your decision. I don't want to waste people's time by putting the appeal in the wrong place. Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
See the instructions at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, subsection "Appeals".  Sandstein  11:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will of course notify you of the appeal when it is filed. Varsovian (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sebastiano venturi

Hi,

I just noticed your comment about Sebastiano venturi on the FTN archive. I'm seeing some of the same issues - particularly the citation of a letter to the editor as a reliable source. There do seem to be reliable sources published by him, but there also seems to be a lot of "hypotheses" drafted by him that are showing up in contravention of MEDRS and UNDUE. The websites sourced seem rather amateurish and this makes me concerned about how much POV-pushing may be occurring. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(For reference, this concerns Sebastiano venturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).) Thanks, and also for removing the apparent junk from Nutrition. I'm not knowledgeable enough in this topic area to do it myself.  Sandstein  19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Varsovian

Instead of keeping a low profile for awhile he immediately inserted himself into a discussion on WikiProject about the Nazi collaborator Anthony Sawoniuk. The nationality of Anthony Sawoniuk is yet determined, the only source which says his mother was Polish is a newspaper article. In a provocative style Varsovian started to compare the Nazi collaborator and war criminal Sawoniuk with Frederic Chopin(!). [17] "That makes him more Polish than Chopin!", "If Sawoniuk isn't Polish, neither is Chopin". I have asked him what has Chopin to do with Sawoniuk and reply was this: [18] "if he isn't Polish, neither is Chopin", "Unless we can find a source which says that Sawoniuk's father was a nationality other than Polish, Sawoniuk is purely Polish". This is crazy, he should provide sources that Sawoniuk and his father is Polish not others that he is not. Not happy enough that he needlessly dragged Chopin's name into the discuss on a Nazi collaborator, he opened a new section titled Chopin vs Sawoniuk. [19]. I asked him to provide sources: [20] and the reply was this: [21] no sources provided and more comparisons between F.Chopin and Sawoniuk. He also accused me that I am "trying to distract attention from yet another warning you this week received despite being under a DIRWIGEN official caution". I am most certainly not trying to distract attention from anything but I have a problem when somebody compares a Nazi collaborator of uncertain nationality with Frederic Chopin. I request you review if Varsovian's conduct is not in violation of the standards expected in the EE area.  Dr. Loosmark  18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking at it here. If you believe that an editor's conduct warrants sanctions, please make a request on WP:AE, which provides a transparent framework for the examination of such matters.  Sandstein  19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah only that I have no idea how to make a request on WP:AE. I tried to follow the instructions but it's a complete mess.  Dr. Loosmark  21:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't help you there. Most people seem to be able to follow the the instructions quite well. You can also experiment with the request template in userspace until it works.  Sandstein  21:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me

Hi Sandstein, may I please ask you to forgive me for everything I have done to you? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Unhelpful comment by Abisharan (talk · contribs) removed,  Sandstein  20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
Abisharan, I do not think that this is any of your concern. Mbz1, please just stay off my talk page and comply with your topic ban and I will be happy.  Sandstein  20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure you have noticed, but I did remove the message myself in the very next edit. It was reposted by the other user. I really would like to comply with my topic ban, and to obey your order to stay off your talk page, but I am not sure what should I do with the message left at my talk page by IP , and you told me once you are the only one I may ask such questions. So, am I allowed to respond the questions in the second part of the message (looks like he is really interested in writing the article), and delete the message altogether few days later? Please explain me what to do in such situation without violating my topic ban. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You can delete or archive whatever you want from your talk page without violating your topic ban. You can also of course reply to questions unrelated to the topic of your ban.  Sandstein  13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

West Germany

The last time I reported an edit warrior to you, you sanctioned also me. Now I wonder about your reaction to the edits at West Germany after June 3. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. Next time please use WP:AN3.  Sandstein  21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Huh!? I count 4 reverts for the IP user, 2 for user:Zlatan Ramić versus 3 each user:Henrig and User:Matthead. Which means there was a tag team versus tag team battle, all of them were edit warring and all of them should be sanctioned. Semi-protection is a ridiculous solution.  Dr. Loosmark  21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I may indeed not have looked thoroughly enough. However, I'm not pleased to find my approach referred to as "ridiculous", and therefore invite you to ask another admin at WP:AN3 to evaluate whether further action may be needed.  Sandstein  22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I don't want to have anything to do with that particular editor, nor do I care for that article too much. I think you are now aware that your decision was wrong, fix it or leave it as it is, it's up to you and what standards do you set for yourself as an admin.  Dr. Loosmark  22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bread and butter

Hi! You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bread and butter. You probably didn't notice that one of the !votes in the discussion had been inappropriately removed just before. Could you revisit the AfD and see if it would have affected your closure? Further discussion on the incident is at ANI. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, counting that comment would not have resulted in a consensus to delete, especially because since the article is no longer about the phrase and the comment therefore no longer applies.  Sandstein  11:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AE report.

I am not sure if I am required to notify you but just in case: I have made a report on user:Varsovian where I also mentioned a previous sanction he got from you. [22].  Dr. Loosmark  21:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the user

Don't block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.114.245 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Which user?  Sandstein  21:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

AE

I hope you didn't take my frustration with Nableezy's recent report as bashing on your decision. I actually think you have handled yourself well in the AE I-P stuff and know you receive too many talk page messages about it. I just also agree to a certain (bordering on large) extent with the requester's train of thought on it.Cptnono (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Block of JuliaHavey1

Sandstein, I note that you have blocked this account. I trust that you have also carefully reviewed the behaviour of the other editors involved in the Juice Plus dispute. If you have not done so, I urge you to give it serious consideration. Risker (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I reacted to what I considered immediately obvious and ongoing disruption (legal threats and block evasion), and was not aware of any obvious disruption by anybody else. I am not sure whether I am best qualified to conduct my own investigation into what appears a convoluted matter of which functionaries may already have been seized, and which may also involve offwiki issues and confidential correspondence. Of course, feel free to undo my block if you think it is unhelpful in the broader context of whatever is going on here.  Sandstein  18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it would be an idea not to block someone for disruption when they're in the middle of making a credible complaint that there is BLP-violating information about them in a Wikipedia article; that's usually a good reason to try to sort out what's going on rather than blocking people. It's also, generally speaking, a bad idea to block someone who's just filed a request for arbitration of one form or another, even if they are a sock; we're usually pretty good at working these things out, and if a block's needed, it can usually wait until at least an arbcom clerk, if not an arbitrator, has had a chance to read things over. In the interim, perhaps you might find this thread gives you a bit of background here. No, I'm not suggesting you block anyone else in relation to this, but I want to reinforce that instantaneous reaction to what one perceives as disruption is not always the best course. Right now, we have someone who's been the subject of considerable harassment blocked because she complained about it. Risker (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Point taken.  Sandstein  19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Brandmeister

He created another account and edited the talkpage of the article at cause in the report. I don't think it is necessary to reopen, since you are the closing admin, you could at your discretion update the report and endorse a restriction. Ionidasz (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Physchim62

Why did you go for a one month topic ban when two other admins had settled on one week as the appropriate sanction? Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Because, as I explained there, Physchim62's continued combative statements after the two other admins' comments, about him being on "show trial" for criticising Israel, led me to believe me that he profoundly misunderstands the nature and purpose of Wikipedia, and that a longer ban is needed.  Sandstein  10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you went out on your own there, the other two admins saw the same diffs and the effect is that you imposed a ban against the emerging consensus and that's not what AE is supposed to be about. Please abate the ban to 1 week and then seek consensus for an extension if you think this is too short. But its wrong to go your own way against consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is not required for discretionary sanctions, hence the name. At any rate, two people do not make a consensus, and the only disagreement seems to be about the length of the ban. I'll not modify my sanction.  Sandstein  10:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Disappointingly inflexible if I may say so and rather disdainful of the views of fellow admins. Spartaz Humbug! 10:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If you take interest in these matters, might I suggest that your time might be better spent by reviewing and closing a few enforcement requests yourself, instead of criticizing those who do?  Sandstein  11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
What would be the point of my spending time reviewing evidence and contributing opinions if you are just going to ignore then and do what you feel like anyway? Spartaz Humbug! 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No, if you review a case and either close it without action or impose whatever sanction you deem appropriate, I won't second-guess you. That's rather the point of discretionary sanctions, which are intended to be fast and effective: it's up to the individual admin reviewing a request to decide what to do, much like WP:AIV, and not up to the community by way of a discussion.  Sandstein  11:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP

You may be unfamiliar with this, but an arbitrator has taken the position that where editors sought to introduce into an article a direct quote from a Washington Post article that said, in effect, "unnamed government officials say X", that is a clear BLP violation. The reason, she asserted, is that it did not name who the government officials were. That, I expect, is at odds with your view of BLP requirements (it was at odds with mine, but I defer to the arb). Obviously, the statement at the Der Spiegel article was far less revealing as to the source of its statement. We need consistency on wp. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a diff for this?  Sandstein  12:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Number 23

Pleasing picture and not an axe in sight. - I too spent yesterday afternoon photographing an old building for Wikipedia - nice to know that we have at least one thing in common.  Giacomo  07:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Axe? At any rate, thanks for contributing your architectural know-how to the article, which I think is well written even though what's available online are less than optimal sources.  Sandstein  12:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 AE

The enforcement request re Breein1007 has now been archived without an actual result (here) -- perhaps that's not an outcome you will consider undesirable, but I'd like to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no particular desire either way. If an AE request is archived without action, it's pretty much unactionable by default.  Sandstein  12:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please go bicker elsewhere.  Sandstein  20:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would you extend the same thought about an AE request which is archived without action to the AE request which Loosmark recently filed with regard to me? I asked another admin here [23] whether the best resolution to that request was that Loosmark and I be both completely banned from interacting with each other, or even mentioning each other. I'd welcome your thoughts either here or there as to whether such action would be the best solution to a matter which Loosmark has recently raised again ([24]). Varsovian (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
An admin has now said that "An interaction ban between Dr. Loosmark and Varsovian seems to have some merit." and suggested two months as the duration ([25]). I replied that the ban should be longer and tighter ([26]). Loosmark's response starts "An interaction ban between Dr.Loosmakr and Varsovian!? You have to be kidding." ([27]) I really would welcome any comments which you can find time to make with regard to this matter. Thank you in advance for any help you may offer. Varsovian (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The AE request was about Varsovian breaking his AE sanctions. Namely he told Kotniski that he made accusations racism and that was after he was explained a couple of days earlier on this very talk page that nobody was making accusation of racism and was advised to stop doing it. In my opinion he misused my AE request to start a series of accusations against myself which have nothing to with the request. (Among other things he said that I should be happy "that he did not report me for deliberately mistranslating a source".) Varsovian is of course free to fill an AE report against me if he wants an interaction ban (i will oppose it), but in my opinion it would be a mistake to close a report on his violation of the AE sanctions with a interaction ban between me and him. It will just give him the green light to go on claiming that people make accusations of racism when they did not make such accusations plus it will get rid of the person who dared to report him for such a violation.  Dr. Loosmark  14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
As was pointed out to you here [28], you are incorrect when you say "Varsovian breaking his AE sanctions". You have given diffs regarding a single sanction. Kindly refrain from making the accusation regarding plural sanctions. I suggest that your apparently inability either to correctly use plural forms about me or to tell the truth (one or the other is clearly the cause) simply tells me that the best thing for WP is if we are both immediately and very firmly banned from interacting with each other. Varsovian (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but I am able to use the plural quite correctly and I suggest you read my report again. I claimed you broke both your specific AE sanction and the general Digwuren sanctions. I have even put both links in the report. And small wonder you are now lobbying for closing the AE report with a "firm interaction ban" both on the Strifle's and Sandstein's talk. It gives you a dream scenario without addressing your misconduct in the slightest to boot.  Dr. Loosmark  14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, now it is "I claimed you broke both your specific AE sanction" while in the past it was "The AE request was about Varsovian breaking his AE sanctions." but you are "able to use the plural quite correctly". I won't provide diffs to the above quotes (which are both on this page) as I'm not accusing you of any misconduct (particularly, to avoid any doubt, not accusing you of lying about whether I broke sanctions or one sanction). Varsovian (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you just wrote it's either "my inability either to correctly use plural forms about you or to tell the truth (one or the other is clearly the cause)". Either of that is uncivil and you seem to repeatedly be under the illusion that if you attach the "I am not accusing you of..." disclaimer, you can write whatever you wish then. Not so. But anyway since now according to you, you are "not accusing me of any misconduct" may I ask why again are you going on about it then? This is not a forum for chitchatting.  Dr. Loosmark  17:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You have repeatedly made good-faith mistakes when using the plural form (examples are above and they're good faith mistakes not misconduct, so there's no need for me to provide diffs). This suggests that you may be reading not what my words say but what you think they should say. Giving that you always seem to take the understanding which is worst for me, it may well be that you're having problems with me. Therefore, so that you don't post with reference to those problems (and drop the WP:STICK) it would be best if we were banned as I've suggested. Varsovian (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Your latest post is once again a violation of your restriction: [29]. Quote Also, whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue.. The above: "This suggests that you may be reading not what my words say but what you think they should say. Giving that you always seem to take the understanding which is worst for me, it may well be that you're having problems with me." is clear accusation of bad faith. You seems to think that you have found a very clever loophole by constantly using the "not misconduct" disclaimer however you are mistaken because if that would be allowed to pass then everybody could avoid any restriction that way.  Dr. Loosmark  18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:HORSE]. Yet again I specifically say "not misconduct" and you then claim I'm alleging misconduct. It really is getting very hard to assume good faith on the part of you. Varsovian (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry and a question

Thank you for taking the action which was needed to prevent my behaviour from damaging the project. I would like to apologise for not being able to impose such sanctions on myself. If I may ask for slight clarification of the sanctions: you say "Should either party believe that the other violates this ban, they may not react to this except by means of the following procedure: they may inform one uninvolved administrator, on their talk page," do you mean that I should inform the uninvolved administrator on their talk page or on my talk page? I'm pretty sure you mean I should use their talk page but I'd like to be entirely sure. Also, are you an "uninvolved administrator"? I'm not sure if you are but having seen you give me one warning and two sets of sanctions, I can see that you're even-handed and not afraid to take action when it is needed. Varsovian (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the admin's talk page. I consider myself uninvolved in any disputes concerning you, or I wouldn't have issued the interaction ban. (Administrative actions don't constitute involvement in disputes, see WP:UNINVOLVED).  Sandstein  12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that for me. Varsovian (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Varsovian

Sorry, I don't know if this is the sort of thing you bother about, but Varsovian once again appears to be edit-warring knowingly unsourced and controversial information into this article. Is this the kind of thing that any action can be taken to stop? --Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, the first action to stop any edit war is to start a talk page conversation and discuss the sources for the contested material. That's not been done so far. If that does not help, there's WP:AN3.  Sandstein  12:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion regarding the contested material on the talk page [30] Varsovian (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
And as usual, no sources have been provided, just the usual original synthesis. Sorry, but I've tried many times to discuss things with this user, and it just doesn't work - he has an agenda and is interested in nothing else than pushing it. I thought you (Sandstein) might be familiar with the way he works, but apparently not.--Kotniski (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There already is a very very very long discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland spread out over two different threads: here and here.radek (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that this discussion be conducted on the appropriate talk pages and not here. For the content dispute, WP:DR applies. In the event of continued edit warring, WP:AN3 may be used, but then all parties involved in the edit war may be sanctioned.  Sandstein  14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A question if I may: you say "the appropriate talk pages" but which talk pages are the appropriate ones? I would have thought that the best place would be the article's own talk page, am I mistaken? Also, is the WikiProject Poland page an appropriate place, given that the article has long been tagged as being "within the scope of WikiProject Belarus"? Varsovian (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You'll excuse me if I won't express an opinion about this. I prefer not to become involved in the content disputes in this area, so as to remain able to act in an administrative capacity if required.  Sandstein  14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Heinz Kurschildgen

RlevseTalk 18:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AE report

I see you adopted Varsovian's idea for the interaction ban, which he first proposed on the user:Stifle talk page: [31], [32], [33]. Very well. I have tried to restrain myself but after I dared to report him he started with relentless personal attacks against myself, nobody was clerking the AE page and neither did anybody tell him to stop. Then he came to spread the attacks on your talk. And I am only human. Even today he was de facto implying that I was deliberately mistranslating a source: [34]. And this is after the other day he accused me of lying about a source [35]. Am I allowed to throw in such accusations myself too? Or am I for example allowed to say things like: "I am not alleging misconduct. Sandstein you should be happy that I have not reported you to the ArbCom for your admin work"? Anyway I request that you reply to my initial AE enforcement request, I provided 3 diffs in which I think he broke the AE. You could at the very least say: "yes he did break them" or "no, he did not break them". At least we would know where we stand.  Dr. Loosmark  21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The above message, which makes reference to Varsovian, constitutes a violation of your interaction ban. In reaction, you are blocked for 24 hours.  Sandstein  21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
As to the substance of your question, I consider the issue moot after the mutual interaction ban, since the AE request seems also to stem from disputes between you two. So as not to further any interaction between you two, I do not intend to address any prior grievances you may have had against each other. If you continue to pursue this dispute, you will violate your interaction ban again.  Sandstein  12:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a revelation for you, Sandstein, 99.99% of the reports generate from some sort of a dispute, without that nobody would bother to report anybody. I remember that some 9 months ago, when you imposed on me a 6 months topic ban, you refused to consider the behavior of another user involved because according to you that was irrelevant and everybody is responsible for its own actions. As for your explanation that you don't want to address any prior "grievances" not to "further any interaction", the explanation does not hold any water. I intend to respect the restrictions and I don't intend to comment any further on the issue in any shape or form. So your addressing the prior grievances would not "further any interaction".  Dr. Loosmark  22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry's block

Well, there was pretty much a consensus after several days discussion for a community ban, so I was just doing what the community said. But I can understand why everyone at AN/I was so inclined to a ban.

Eugeneacurry was in the middle of an edit war with another user and wrote an "encyclopedia article" on that person. This is an encyclopedia. Our articles must be encyclopedic, or the project loses all credibility. Curry enlisted the encyclopedia itself to further his edit war against another user. I am sorry but I just see no justification under any circumstances for turning articles into weapons in edit wars. To me it simply shows contempt for the very idea of the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks fo the feedback. I'm declining the unblock in view of this and the ANI discussion.  Sandstein  04:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

First and foremost I would like to reply to this:

"a separate request concerning Athenean should have been made if Athenean is believed to have acted disruptively" The seperate request was made 14 days ago here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean but it was completely ignored by the admins. I can make the request again. Are you willing to take a look at it?

Second I would like to appeal your decision on indefinite ban on the topics of Albania and Albanians and Greece and Greeks. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If your report was ignored then the reason may be because it was unfounded or (more likely) too long and not well argued enough to usefully review. Useful reports must contain a manageable number of dated and well-explained diffs. You may not make the report again because doing so would violate your topic ban. For appealing your ban, see the instructions at WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanctions 2.1) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

The instructions say that I may appeal the ban to the imposing administrator, and that's what I am doing. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then your appeal is declined because you have not provided a reason for why the ban should be lifted.  Sandstein  17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well here it goes. I honestly believed that my 1RR restriction imposed by Nishkid almost a year ago had expired, and did not know it was still in effect.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Knowing your restrictions is your own responsibility. This is not a convincing reason for lifting the ban.  Sandstein  18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Being that I was out on a ban for 6 months, and hadn't used wikipedia during that time (early June) and just forgot about this restriction. I think a little leniency on your part is warranted.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In view of your previous substantial disruption, and the evidence produced in the AE of outing and block evasion, it is not. You have had enough chances. Your appeal is declined. You may still appeal elsewhere as per the directions above.  Sandstein  19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as disruption goes, you should take a look at the report I made on Athenean. If I am disruptive than Athenean is the epiphany of disruption. As soon as I came back from my ban he and his friend Alexikoua have shadowed me continually in every revert I make, and have reported me on assumption of bad faith 3 times, including this time. In fact all the bans or restrictions I have received have come from reports from this editor and his sergeant at arms Alexikoua. --I Pakapshem (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


(Subsection about the complaint)

How can you say it's not well argued enough when you haven't even looked at it? It is very useful, very well argued, dated and numbered. The amount of information included is vast in order to bolster the argument that this user should be permanently banned from balkan articles. --I Pakapshem (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to argue about your grievances concerning disputes, editors or articles related to Albania, you will violate your topic ban and be blocked.  Sandstein  16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am having a conversation with you, and I am not violating my topic ban since your talk page is not related to Albanian and Albanians and Greece and Greeks. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Breach of your sanctions?

Is this [36] a breach of your recent sanctions on the two editors involved? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think it's superseded by the report below.  Sandstein  15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

This diff [37] is a clear violation of the DIGWUREN restriction [38]. If changing my "Polish" into "Belorussian" is not a vilation of the "stay out of each other's way" then I don't know what is.  Dr. Loosmark  15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I blocked Loosmark in turn, because his addition of "Polish" to the lead appeared to be a direct reaction to Varsovian removing Category:Polish Bishops. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No objection.  Sandstein  17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement clarification request

Just a short question so that I am clear about the precise restrictions I am under: while blocked yesterday I posted on my talk page a request for enforcement regarding a breach of editing restrictions. I note, however, that the terms of the restriction "Should either party believe that the other violates this ban, they may not react to this except by means of the following procedure: they may inform one uninvolved administrator, on their talk page, of the diff of the edit in question as well as of this topic ban, and ask the admin to determine whether that edit constitutes a sanctionable violation;" Should I have waited until I was unblocked to ask for enforcement? Also, am I correct in assuming that ""interaction" is to be determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment, but shall include (without being limited to) making reference to the other on any page," would include unblock requests? I took great care to only address my own behaviour in my unblock request, was that the correct thing to do? Varsovian (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In each case, the answer is yes.  Sandstein  18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll make sure to remember that in the future (although it is somewhat moot given that I have no intention to be blocked for violating the interaction ban, despite the best efforts of Chumchum7 above where he claims that my editing a completely different section of the article was a violation!) One other question: would it have been acceptable for me to email the edits which I requested enforcement for to an admin? Varsovian (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Many admins, including myself, prefer to act only on onwiki correspondence, for transparency's sake. Others might accept such an e-mail request.  Sandstein  21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

interaction ban violation

In regard to this restriction you placed on User:Dr. Dan [39] where Dan "is also banned from commenting on or otherwise directly interacting with Piotrus", please take a look at this edit, specifically the sentence "Which is why I get a laugh out of people who ... Fetish model|model different Żupan|garbs on their user pages." ("fetish model" and "Żupan" are wiki-linked).

This is a clear comment on Piotrus, and a reference to this picture which Piotrus has on his user page, in which he is wearing a Żupan. Comparing a user's inclusion of a photo of himself on their own user page to fetish modeling is in itself rude, never mind that it violates the interaction/commenting ban.

What makes this worse is that there's a bit of a backstory here, which very clearly shows that this was intended as an insult to Piotrus and that it is indeed an intentional reference to him. Basically, for a long time Dan would link to the picture in all kinds of discussions, for no discernible reason at all (the discussions were in no way related to the clothing), except possibly to deliberately annoy Piotrus.

A search for the image on Wikipedia brings up some of the places which show this: [40] and some specific instances are here (archive, click "P.P" link), here, here, here, here (archive, click "P.P" link), here (archive, click "P.P" link), here (archive, click "P.P" link) and here (archive, click "P.P" link). I'm sure there is more. All of these diffs show that Dan's statement about people fetish modeling Żupans on Wikipedia was not in a reference to some random person but intended for Piotrus specifically (note also that Dan made the comment shortly after Piotrus commented on Loosmark's page right below this thread). And it was intended to continue a pattern of insulting Piotrus.

Indeed, User:Irpen, who was most definitely not on friendly terms with Piotrus (but who nonetheless managed to observe a certain level of civility) noted that Dan's actions were provocative and removed Dan's links [41], and noted that this was an attempt to ridicule Piotrus [42].

Piotrus had also asked Dan to desist in this action [43] (and as can be seen from the discussion Irpen supported Piotrus here, which I think was like the only time that the two of them agreed on anything). So this makes this not only incivil, a violation of an interaction restriction, but also resumption of activity which Dan promised to cease.

I also want to note that while taken in isolation this kind of thing may seem minor, this pattern of low-intensity but constant harassment by Dan has already driven off valuable editors away from Wikipedia: [44], [45]. The fact that these comments of Dan's are made in a way specifically designed to WP:GAME the restriction acerbate rather than alleviate the nature of the infraction.

If this needs to be made into a AE report please let me know. The need for the backstory and the fact that the relevant sanctions are discretionary is why I'm asking about this on your talk page.radek (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bickering collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My remarks made here [46] were made in jest and have nothing to do with this party [47] any more than linking the aforementioned person to the House of Scrotum. Radeksz, please do not come to my user page [48] with this kind of drivel. I realize you are looking for any kind of straw to grasp for a multitude of reasons, not least of all being what happened to you as a result of the EEML debacle. I repeat, no reference to that party was intended. Furthermore I experienced this kind of mentality during my time in the Eastern Block. Ironically, one of my Polish patients at the hospital recently told me that he received a five year jail sentence in Poland in the early 1950's, while serving in the army, for making a joke that the authorities found to be unacceptable. Five years! Radeksz please don't try to extrapolate something out of an exchange at someone else's talk page that doesn't concern you. Again, the reference was not about the party in question. And Radeksz I'm impressed with all of the links and backround that you've dug up to make a case going all the way back to God knows when. Senator McCarthy and Iona Nikitchenko would be proud of the effort. It will be nice when you have more time to improve the project rather than following my edits at other people's talk pages. Sorry to have to respond here at this talk page, but I'd like to nip this in the bud. On the one hand it's humorous and somewhat ridiculous, but on the other it is taking on sinister and ugly overtones. I have engaged in humorous banter with Loosmark for a considerable time. If he has a problem with my edits at his talk page I'm sure we are capable of resolving them without you (Radeksz) starting a new witchhunt. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"the reference was not about the party in question" - the reference was in fact very much about the party in question as the diffs I provided show. Can you find a picture of any other Wikipedia editor who "fetish models" "Zupans" on their userpage? Or anywhere else on Wikipedia?radek (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
My remarks made here [49] were made in jest and have nothing to do with this party [50]. Period. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure they were made "in jest", as in "making fun" or insulting other people. But these "other people" happen to be ones you are banned from commenting on. And again, the diffs and the history provided above illustrate very clearly that they had everything to do with Piotrus. Again, if not him, who exactly were you commenting on? You can pick a general group rather than a specific user if that helps your case. Not many people or groups "model" pictures of themselves wearing Zupans on Wikipedia.radek (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"My case?" I didn't know I was on trial. You ask "Can you find a picture of any other Wikipedia editor who fetish models Zupans on their userpage?" To me that suggests that you believe the party in question fetish models Zupans on their userpage. I don't happen to believe that to be the case. Furthermore at the "diff" I specifically stated "Which is why I get a laugh out of people who believe that they're descended from the House of Scrotum, even though they're not, or model different garbs on their user pages. Why would I get a laugh out of this this picture. Do you see anything funny about it? Funny how? Do you really think that it represents fetish modeling? I do not. In that picture the party is simply celebrating the holidays wearing the costume that I assume his aristocratic ancestors wore during festive occasions. If you read the article on Lady Catherine you'll notice that she too modeled dirndls in the 1930's, it might be a prerogative of persons of a high station to dress up like that. So no, you're mistaken. But thank you for bringing forth the picture. One doesn't get to see the garb too frequently outside of a museum these days. Let me say this again, I wasn't referring to that picture. Got it? Let me say this too. The first part of my comment to my friend, Loosmark, was ..."I get a laugh out of people who believe that they're descended from the House of Scrotum, even though they're not...", surely you're not also ridiculously claiming that I was somehow violating a sanction by that remark as well? That I was referring to someone in particular. I suppose if I had used kontusz or Grecian bend instead of zupan for my link to "garb", all of this could have been avoided. And thanks for notifying me at my talk page. Usually these matters are coordinated "soto voce", through off-line emails, and the like. And I thought I'd only have to deal with your antics after your ban expired instead of during it. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz, the reference may well have been intentional, but it's too indirect to be sanctionable in my opinion. You are of course free to see if other admins at WP:AE think otherwise. Dr. Dan, your outrage rings hollow; please don't do anything that causes this ridiculous spat to continue. If either of you wishes to discuss this further, which I strongly advise against, please do not do it on my talk page.  Sandstein  06:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein I have to ask you for a clarification, from what I understand of your comment above, one can make references which may well be intentional but the trick is to make it look indirect, am I correct? The second question, in the thread above, now collapsed as "bickering", my friend Dan makes a direct reference to Piotrus, a user he is banned from interacting with, quote: "In that picture the party is simply celebrating the holidays wearing the costume that I assume his aristocratic ancestors wore during festive occasions." Now my question is one allowed to make such analysis of a user with whom one is banned to interact as long as one use the word "the party"? Please note that I am not criticizing you, I just want to understand how these interaction bans work.  Dr. Loosmark  18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No, except in the context of necessary dispute resolution, when one is discussing one's past actions to defend oneself against sanctions. Now I suggest you drop this matter because I do not believe that it is helpful for you whole lot of EE people to keep sniping at one another on my talk page.  Sandstein  21:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks.  Dr. Loosmark  22:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and question

Thank you for unblocking me. I am starting to think about changing nicks, so that my biography in Wikipedia does not appear as black as it may appear judging exclusively from my block history. Would my blocks still appear if I change nickname? --Sulmues Let's talk 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your block log carries over after a change of username.  Sandstein  15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So is there a way in Wikipedia to have a fresh start, with the same username or a new one without having to recur to a sock account? Something similar to a bankruptcy that cancels your past economic endeavors and allows you to start ab initio. In my first year of contributions in Wikipedia I got 6 blocks. What if I want to start daccapo? Do it all over again, but without the newbie mistakes? --Sulmues Let's talk 21:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In principle, yes, see WP:CLEANSTART. But because you have been the subject of multiple arbitration sanctions, some of which are still active, you are not allowed to do this, and would risk an indefinite block of all accounts if you did.  Sandstein  21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and for pointing me to the right policy! The WP:Cleanstart policy says A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account. My interpretation (and please let me know if that interpretation is correct) is that the bans, blocks or sanctions should be active in order to be disallowed to have cleanstart. If these bans, blocks or sanctions are inactive then one can have a cleanstart. Right now I am no currently blocked, but I am under one sanction (a 1RR imposed by Stifle [51], which will expire tomorrow), and an indefinite ban from editing in AE (unless I'm the reporting or reportee party) imposed by you [52]. If I successfully appeal the AE ban (and I think I may be doing that only 6 months from now or so), and I won't have any sanctions, bans, or blocks until then, I believe I should qualify for WP:Cleanstart at that point, am I correct? --Sulmues Let's talk 13:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes. But your history of disruption is frankly so significant that other editors might be worried that a clean start would give you license to continue your disruption more easily, because your earlier disruption would not be held against you. Under these circumstances, I suggest that you obtain either the community's approval (via a WP:RFC) or the Arbitration Committee's approval for a clean start.  Sandstein  22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, although I don't plan to do any clean start in short times, exactly for my recent history of disruption. --Sulmues Let's talk 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RhodiumArmpit

Good reasoning on that user. Bear in mind that since you scrubbed the person this user repeatedly mentioned in the unblock request, there are lots of other mentions to that person's name on the same talk page. You might consider scrubbing those as well. I'd do it but I'm not sure if I'm allowed. Regardless, thanks for your efforts :)-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 06:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but most other mentions seem to relate to the Wikipedia account, not the alleged criminal conduct of the person in real life.  Sandstein  07:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You set a decent challenge....

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott L. Schwartz: The article is now somewhat better. With help it could be even more so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the lede spam. diff Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)