User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/March

Requesting your assistance

From the Portal:Feminism when you click on the WikiProject Gender Studies you are taken to WP:General sanctions. Looking through the history of the page, it seems that you recently changed a redirect that is causing this to happen.

Given that March is National Women's History Month in the United States (maybe other places, too??), and International Women's Day is March 8th, I would like for us to make a special effort now to be welcoming to females and other people interested in articles related to women in hope that we could recruit them as editors. For that reason, I would appreciate your help in sorting this out and see what other places it could be problem from the change you made. regards, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the redirect WP:GS to point to WP:General sanctions instead of to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies. I've fixed the now-wrong links in the most prominent places, Portal:Feminism/Projects, Portal:Men's rights/Projects, Template:User WikiProject Gender Studies and Template:WikiProject Gender Studies Invitation. Thanks for the notification.  Sandstein  19:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for promptly looking into this, and I appreciate you making those changes. :-) regards, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shitstorm

To be honest, I don't care about the other subject except that he causes me annoyance and frustration. The shitstorm on whoever this is has been a thorn in my side for several years. If I knew how to use this stuff better, I'd have already asked for it all to be removed. I hadn't discovered that page until today after your link and I've sent a letter to them too but I doubt it will get anywhere. I still don't see the point of the wikipedia pages. People are referencing them and it seems to be the root of the problem most of the time with other websites posting information. I don't know that it is ir isn't accurate but it seems out of place on an encyclopedia website. According to my reading wikipedia doesn't think they should have a page here but keeps this log anyway. I'm writing to all of them, but I don't know how to use wikipedia and it takes me a long time to find stuff figure out who wrote it and how to even ask for the removal. Is there a more formal way to request that the pages be deleted? I'm going to assume the "courtesy blanking" kww was talking about won't happen? Thanks for getting back to me soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.76 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this all about? Which page(s) do you refer to (please provide links) and why do you want them to be deleted?  Sandstein  19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am copying this from above because I'm not sure if I put it in the right place the first time or if you saw it? Am I supposed to start a new topic for this? Sorry that I'm so wikipedia ignorant.

Here are three links of the pages I'd like removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon_(3rd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon I am still confused on the correlation between these two people and it's frustrating to share an even partial name with this person/people. There are other sites on the Internet that reference the arguments here and it has been spread around my office, at one point almost costing me my job. I've been harassed by coworkers and my wife has been questioned about her husbands integrity because of things online about someone unrelated. All of the "facts" seem to link back to this years old discussion on Zachary Jaydon/Jaydon Paull and to be honest, from reading it I can't tell if they are one or to people real or created by someone or several someones. All I know is that if the outcome of the debate/argument etc has been decided, can the pages be removed to save me the hassle of having my name dragged through the murk? It's not encyclopedic in any way and seems to serve no constructive purpose at this point. I apologize for my earlier confusion about google. It was another wikipedia site. I thought hey were all the same. That one links to this one though and then other sites are pulling information from here as well. This seems to be the root of the problem. Thanks for understanding. Maybe I'm just being selfish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.57 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the pages have been courtesy-blanked. Their content is no longer easily accessible. They will also not show up on Google searches (and should not have done so previously).  Sandstein  22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Repent! Repent!

I am quite disgusted by your statement here that you have a policy of issuing indefinite blocks to make contributors repent and grovel for the allmighty. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Groveling or repenting is not desired. But I take seriously our policy that blocks should be preventative, not punitive. A preventative block is one that lasts as long as it is needed to prevent disruption. We can't usually know in advance how long this is. That's the problem with blocks of definite duration. So the better approach is to block indefinitely but unblock immediately as soon as we are convinced that the disruption will not resume.  Sandstein  19:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, I now looked at you actual log of blocking measures. There are not that many indefinites, and the indefinite blocks that you issued are obviously vandals. But what you wrote in the quote that I linked to sounded rather extreme. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd

No offense, but I think your close of my arbitration enforcement request concerning User:Abd was premature. I was initially [barely] satisfied by the outcome and actually believed he had agreed "to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained [...] in an unambiguous and convincing manner" but it wasn't even half an hour after you'd acknowledged it that he'd started off a new thread on his talk page directly disputing it, and kicked off a dispute with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for good measure. And that's not all...

What's the next step - can this be reviewed or do I need to start another separate arbitration proceeding? -- samj _in^out 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to make a new request if you believe there are continued problems. I can't immediately see a violation in these edits though. Abd is not required to agree with the restriction or its interpretation, he just has to obey it. Maybe if you leave this be for a while it will die down.  Sandstein  21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the close as well. Abd is harassing the very administrator who clarified the restriction for him - see the diffs I posted on the AE page. I don't think this is acceptable, and I don't think this is a separate issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) Well, it is a separate issue insofar as harrassing administrators (if that's what it is) is not a violation of the remedy that prohibits commenting on the disputes between others. It may be grounds for a normal block for disruptive wikilawyering, if it is disruptive, but it's not an AE matter. Of course my closure of the AE request does not prevent you, as an administrator, to take on your own any arbitration enforcement or other action that you believe is required, if you are uninvolved in the dispute between Abd and Fut.Perf.  Sandstein  22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this is a standard Abd ploy. If a new request is opened it would be a "dispute" between Abd and the admin who correctly enforced his restriction. Abd would then argue that he is involved and unable to enforce the restrictions against him. We've seen this before. Verbal chat 22:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Any such arguments should simply be ignored and the sanction applied nonetheless.  Sandstein  22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Maybe it is a sign of how far down the tubes Wikipedia has gone, but I'm quite grateful for your sanity in handling this, even if I disagree with your interpretation of the sanction. I accepted you as neutral without actually investigating your history, and even though you had already written a preliminary result with which I disagreed, because you actually waited and asked for advice from others. That's a strong sign of neutrality. I will ask you if I have any problems interpreting the sanction pending ArbComm clarification. If that becomes excessive, you can let me know. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My very strong recommendation to you is that you stop discussing all matters related to arbitration or sanctions for the next month or so and go edit some articles instead. I have a feeling that this will otherwise not end well.  Sandstein  22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me, Sandstein. I'm of no strong opinion as to what is "well." Editing Wikipedia is not a personal benefit; if it were, I'd be COI! I do have some unfinished business, both with articles and "arbitration or sanctions," such as the RfAr/Clarification and a dispute over my last block, which was ostensibly about the sanction and which I hope can be resolved without much fuss. On the other hand, I hoped that in the past as well, but I can't control how others respond. I understand your recommendation and see it as well-motivated. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of places where I'm being discussed, by editors who have been highly involved, you see just a tiny sample of that above. I prefer not to respond, generally, it is when I see serious harm being done in conjunction with it that I become tempted to respond. So as a question, would I have been allowed to respond to the comments above about me? (Not "would it be wise," that's a different question, but allowed.) No rush. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can but reiterate my recommendation above.  Sandstein  23:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That doesn't answer my question, Sandstein. You aren't obligated to answer, but suppose I'd responded to the discussion above, which looks like a dispute between you and other editors, where I'm being mentioned, including serious allegations about my behavior. Would you consider such response, ipso facto, a violation of the sanction? I'm not asking if it would be wise for me to respond, that's a different question, about which I already have my own answer in this case. I'm asking if you would enforce the sanction over it. Shouldn't I ask you this kind of question, particularly before deciding whether to respond or not?

Please remember, I've accepted that you are neutral, you have no prior involvement that I'm aware of, at least not any of importance, and that you have acted properly. I'm not going to claim that you are "involved" simply if I disagree with you. They claim that about me, it's not true. If you blocked me, and I disagreed with the basis, I would not claim "involvement" as a defense. It's generally a stupid defense anyway! However, if I dispute such a block and you later blocked me again, I might then claim involvement, but let's hope we never get to that place! I fully intend to cooperate with you. --Abd (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet you're still being completely ignored... you really can't help yourself, can you Abd? -- samj _in^out 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, would you might helping SamJ to get a clue? He's certainly not going to hear it from me. --Abd (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AE block template

Thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please bring the decision up to RfC, and a full vote (hopefully anonymous--- no administrator wants to publically contradict ArbCom) before adding this template. It's not needed because the decision it is advertizing is absurd.Likebox (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Which decision? Do you mean the arbitration motion? Arbitration decisions are not subject to community review, only to appeal by Jimbo Wales. You are of course free to start an RfC nonetheless, but it will have no effect.  Sandstein  21:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This arbitration motion is subject to community review, because the community is being asked to enforce it. RfC will have the effect of telling ArbCom "stop doing this". You have been bitten by this decision as much as anyone--- you've entered into needless conflict.Likebox (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The community isn't enforcing the motion - ArbCom itself is, by desysopping admins who violate it.  Sandstein  21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This must end.Likebox (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Email

Please forward the email you referenced in Tothwolf's block log to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf

Hey, I posted this on ANI but I wanted to make sure you're aware -- I find Tothwolf's removal of my comments about his indef block highly objectionable. I'm not going to edit war to have them included, but I don't think that someone in his position should be able to bury opinions of other editors. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

More edit warring by User:Ludwigs2

This section in your archives describes a similar situation, but this time I'm not reverting him.

In the previous edit war, Ludwigs2 repeatedly violated BRD, and now he's doing it again at Ghost. Please do something. An RfC has been held on the talk page, with everyone else going against Ludwigs2's OR interpretations.

I had tagged content added by User:Dbachmann in the article as OR and failed verification, and added content agreed upon in the RfC. The source is a very short section and contains nothing related to the article content which I have tagged. I have discussed the tagging on the talk page. Ludwigs2 made a very POINTY retaliation tagging which I reverted. (His tags are against the clear wording approved in the RfC.) He has restored, rather than discussed, the reversion. Rather than revert him (thus continuing his edit war), I am bringing the matter to you. He must learn to discuss, and not to edit war. He previously continued to force his edits while discussing. Now he's at it again, this time discussing after starting an edit war, and he's refusing to self-revert and stick to discussion alone. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He has refused to remove his POINTY tags. He is discussing, but is refusing to accept the consensus in the RfC. It's degenerated into stonewalling and endless rounds. He's an expert at this, and to such a degree, and in such a precise manner, that I seriously wonder if he is allowing User:Levine2112 to use his account. This has duck written all over it. If it's not Levine2112, then we have a clone pusher of fringe POV, which is possible. If he won't accept the clear statement by the National Science Foundation, then where are we at? This strikes directly against the ArbCom decision found here. Please put an end to his stonewalling. The Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy) should be enough to topic ban him from all paranormal, alternative medicine, and other fringe subjects, most notably their talk pages, where he is very disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, I do not see much that's admin-actionable at Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You have both been reverting each other a few times, and may both be blocked if you continue. Apart from that, please use WP:DR to resolve the content dispute, and WP:SPI to address any sockpuppetry concerns. The Ghost article is outside the scope of the Homeopathy case. Sorry that I can't be of more help here.  Sandstein  22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

?? I guess we're looking at different articles. What you write isn't true. ("You have both been reverting each other a few times,..") No, I haven't removed his tags again. I haven't violated BRD. He has, and doing it in a pointy manner at that. That's two offenses. His pointy tags, which are against the RfC, are still in place. I haven't removed them. We're discussing, but he's just been stonewalling, all the while with the pointy tags in place. We need to clean up the article. After the RfC concluded the content was proper in every way, he declared he didn't agree and then in a pointy retaliation (after I had tagged something else which he hadn't written) he improperly tagged the part the RfC had approved. That's disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy. If you believe there is disruption, though, please proceed per WP:DR. I do not currently have time to review this to the extent required for any such determination.  Sandstein  19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For your information

I have now talked with the arb drafter of the Asmahan arbitration case. He has told me that I am allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at points I have posted at the talkpage. I am planning on asking either Nableezy again, or some other person. I am giving you this information in advance so that no future misunderstanding will happen. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How does this concern me?  Sandstein  22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. But considering previous false and baseless accusations by some posted for you: [1], I felt that I had to show you what I am entitled to so if that same user comes with more false and baseless accusations. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Theoneintraining

Hi Sandstein, on 18 January 2009, you blocked Theoneintraining (talk · contribs · block log) indefinitely for block evasion with an IP, escalating from a one week block on 17 January, also for block evasion with an IP, which in turn escalated from a 48 hour personal attacks/harassment block also on 17 January. The two escalations happened within a day of the first block. I can't find any record anywhere of behavioural problems continuing after the indefinite block and there are no previous blocks in the log. The only ANI report for Theoneintraining is one from March 2009 asking for removal of rollback from the account because it was indefinitely blocked. Theoneintraining has contacted unblock-en-l asking for a second chance. He has apologised for his behaviour, saying he "deeply regrets" his actions on that day and has promised the bad behaviour will not happen again. It has been over a year since the block and I haven't been able to find any record of any further problems from him. He appears to have been a constructive editor prior to the incident leading to the blocks, and had 65% of his edits to articles. I would like to unblock him and give him another chance under some behavioural conditions, but I wanted to run it by you first in case there was more to it than I'm aware of. Cheers, Sarah 01:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Regards,  Sandstein  19:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. Hopefully he'll go back to being a positive contributor again. Sarah 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg violating his article probation

Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) has violated his article probation on Falun Gong related articles by engaging in edit warring on the 6-10 Office article. See [2]--PCPP (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Was this a trap? The 610 Office is an agency of the Chinese Communist Party. The issues have been discussed clearly on the talk pages. To say that I am edit warring, when all I did was restore deleted, sourced information, once, after leaving a note on the talk page that was ignored, and a few other minor changes... that's not right at all. Just check the article history and talk page. So, my two points are just this: 1) this is not a Falun Gong page. 2) I have not edit warred, have engaged in clear discussion, and only added sourced material to the page, which had been deleted without discussion, and when I left a note asking for a reason it be deleted, the note was ignored. Based on that I put it back. PCPP deleted it again, along with some other small changes I made, and I have not added it back since. A similar dynamic has happened at Mass line: tracts of scholarly informed zapped, unsourced information added. I encourage Sandstein to look into the details of this matter. --Asdfg12345 03:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Rest assured that I have no intention of doing further edits to either of those pages until this issue is resolved. --Asdfg12345 03:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that 6-10 Office is catagorized as a mid-importance FLG article [3], and large amounts of POV material was added by another FLG SPA Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs), which Asdfg restored, while removing official statements from PRC officials, which he dismissed as "train propagandists". [4]--PCPP (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this process not much fun. 1) I only re-added the information (sourced to a U.S. government agency report) after a note I left on the talk page for discussion was ignored for a couple of days. So I re-added the info and made some other small changes. 2) After it was reverted, I did not edit the page again. 3) The two or so lines of text I removed was not sourced. I used the term "highly trained propagandists" or whatever it was as a way of differentiating between the "official" statements about the 610 Office, and the internal documents that actually document its operations, which form much of the basis for the information in the CECC report. They are also "official," and I was distinguishing between the two. 4) The arguments PCPP makes for why the information should be excluded do not appear to be in sync with wiki convention or content guidelines. --Asdfg12345 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor was I aware of the page's categorisation as a mid-important Falun Gong article. If I had known that I would not have edited it. As noted on the talk page, however, I will not begrudge whatever punishment. --Asdfg12345 03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. The page's categorisation is not relevant, the article content is all about Falun Gong.  Sandstein  07:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who has been persistently discouraged to edit these articles due to the presence of these obvious Single-Purpose Accounts, I sought speedy resolution to this matter over at administrator's noticeboard. To me, despite this user's deceivingly 'civil' appearance, he has not shown any sort of tendency to shy away from Falun Gong advocacy - which has always been a two-sided coin - either edit in favour of Falun Gong, or edit against the Communist Party of China. Note that since his ban, he has only edited articles related to the Communist Party of China. As such, he is still, in all definitions of the term, a single-purpose account that does not have the interests of this encyclopedia as his first priority. Without going through the lengthy process of AE again, I hope these infractions are obvious enough that administrators will take discretionary sanctions on top of a simple 24-hour ban, and I am therefore asking that his topic ban be extended to all Falun Gong & Chinese Communist Party articles, or anything that is remotely related to either, to which the user bears an obvious conflict of interest. Colipon+(Talk) 06:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't do. He's already banned to the extent the case allows.  Sandstein  19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

author Brett Salisbury, Author of number 6 book in the country.

Hi, I recently tried to write a page on author Brett Salisbury. His book, the Transform Diet is now number 6 on the publishing companies list top 10. He is credible and played major college football along with now being a top 10 writer with his new book the transform diet. Here is the link to the top 10 and in my opinion should be on wikipedia. Please take a look at google news, Brett Salisbury or just click here to see this latest news: Thank you link

Here is his book as confirmed with Iuniverse publishing company. Thank again.

C.S.N & whey protein; book is confirmed by publishing company (Iuniverse); ISBN 0-595-51569-X; eBook ISBN 0-595-61947-9;Hardcover ISBN 0-595-50497-3

{{Template:US-nutritionist-stub}}

Mike dunbar (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Mike Dunbar

Brett Salisbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury. The information you provide above does not meet our inclusion requirements WP:BIO. It is not enough to have written books; in order to be included in Wikipedia; somebody else must have written about Mr Salisbury.  Sandstein  06:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

While I understand the rationale that Arbcom matters should be dealt with and discussed by Arbcom, I still felt it necessary to raise the latest episode in the Brews Ohare soap series at AN/I Count Iblis (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will ask you that your blocks have no appearance of impropriety. Remember that William M. Connolley's seemingly conflicted blocks led to desysopping.Likebox (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rule 34

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rule 34. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826). I would appreciate userification to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo captive 826). I would appreciate the full revision history and talk page please. Geo Swan (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To what purpose, please?  Sandstein  06:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI on Dilip Rajeev

Hi, I've noted my concerns on Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs) and his recent editing behaviorhere, per the Falun Gong arbcom case [5] and his previous arbitration case [6]--PCPP (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hi Sandstein, may I please ask you, if talking strictly about procedure itself it was the right decision to ban the user? The thing is that the article the user got sanctioned over has absolutely nothing to do with Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There's no single mention about Palestine in the entire article. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is part of the point: the edit for which I banned Gilabrand inserted POV-pushing about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict into an article which is itself unrelated to the conflict.  Sandstein  20:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying your position. I am not sure, if you are aware that somebody tried to influence the votes on the deletion request for the article arguing it should be kept, claiming: "Well sourced article about the Israeli art student scandal is about to be deleted by the Megaphone gang". Apparently it is impossible to figure out, who the poster was, but IMO this fact might be considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the user ban to a month or so. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, actually not. Offline attempts to influence a deletion discussion have nothing to do with whether or not it is a good idea to insert offtopic POV-pushing into an article.  Sandstein  20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not getting irritated over my questions. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion posted

Hi, this message is to inform you a proposed motion in the Arbitration Committee case that you are a party to has been posted. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Trusilver.2FBrews_ohare_unblock_Motion. SirFozzie (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.  Sandstein  20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment in the Wispanow case at AE

Hello Sandstein. You are, of course, free to hand this case off if you don't want to take care of it, but your comment might have misinterpreted a rhetorical comment by the submitter. I don't think he was accusing you of anything. I think he was just asking readers to be aware of Wispanow's charges of racism against various parties. Though opinions may differ on what Arbcom means by its cautions, it sounds like they are asking for zero tolerance on any conventional policy violations on the article where the caution is announced. Unsupported charges of racism represent a conventional policy violation, I think. The guy is risking a block for WP:DE, even without this topic being under an Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the merits of the request yet, but I've of course no objection to you taking whatever action you consider appropriate.  Sandstein  20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples

Howdy Sandstein. Would ya consider moderating? GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Hello Sandstein/Archives/2010. Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case stands at over 750 words. The word limit is 500. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the book The Transform Diet..by Brett Salisbury...

Hi, I read the book the Transform Diet, By Brett Salisbury. I see he was deleted after nearly 3 years of being on Wikipedia? Why was he deleted?

1. His book is number 6 with the publishing company in the world. I don't think much more needs to be said do you how notable he is? My wife and I bought his book and we are living proof his nutritional education works.

Here is the top 10 books and The Transform Diet is number 6. I propose to remove him from deletion. This is world news: click here and see for yourself: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=brett%20salisbury&aql=&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Thank you 24.253.27.16 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury. It may be restored if you can show how the subject meets our inclusion criteria WP:BIO. The above news search does not suffice for this.  Sandstein  07:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gao Zhisheng

Hi Sandstein. I'd like to know if I am allowed to edit the article on Gao Zhisheng. He's a human rights lawyer who got locked up and tortured for defending Falun Gong practitioners. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 05:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a Falun Gong-related article.  Sandstein  05:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification. Since I have your attention, I hope you will be able to answer something else that I've been wondering about. It's a question of consistency and logic. Actually, there are two questions. The first is: why only a six month ban? If I am so bad, why would six months away help? Follow up to that first question is: in what ways, specifically, am I to change my editing after six months (pls see my userpage for expectational clarity) that will be more pleasing? Second question is: why wasn't I given a warning that discretionary sanctions would be applied, showing clearly which rules I had transgressed and how that might be avoided in future? It's written on the discretionary sanctions page that the editor in question should be informed and given a chance to correct themselves. Those are my two questions: why only six months? why no warning as required? Since you made a decision that has ramifications and some significance, I hope you will take a moment to explain a bit more these two things. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused that the passage relating to probation has been struck, yet the above seems to suggest probation is still in force. Could you please explain? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no rhyme or reason, dude. It was an executive decision. It's like China: politicals get dealt with administratively. It was Sandstein's "discretion" that I am banned for six months. There is no explanation or accountability in the process, even when key parts of the process (including the requirement of discretionary sanctions that the bannee be given a warning) are ignored. I have been marked as a tendentious pov-pushing Falun Gong COI SPA cultist subversive element, and that is it. (yes, this sounds bitter, but in the end I am not bitter. I'm just trying to employ these rhetorical devices to make a point.) --Asdfg12345 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I have given an adequate explanation of my decision in the original AE thread. You will also find there, or on the arbitration case page, instructions about how to appeal the decision if you disagree with it. To briefly answer your questions: (a) to allow you to return to editing in a policy-compliant manner after these six months, (b) you have been previously warned as per the diffs in the abovementioned AE request.  Sandstein  06:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg: As Sandstein explained his thinking when blocking you, it is wrong to say that there is no explanation in the AE process. And as you have the right to appeal your ban, it is also wrong to say there is no accountability. You might want to stop "making a point" and start doing something to address the unfairnesses you perceive; perhaps even this? AGK 23:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. I don't mean to blame anyone. I responded to Sandstein's rationale at an appeal and it was rejected without explanation. That's the lack of explanation I was referring to. I acknowledge and appreciate the initial explanation. The reason I felt the second one needed a proper response is because the three points Sandstein's made were basically in the form of facts, not opinions or general conclusions. And (I believed) they could have been shown to be actually mistaken. I attempted to do this at the AE request. Some things, like not editing articles outside Falun Gong, and editing only to make Falun Gong look good, are both either clearly or arguably untrue. And I don't believe I have done a revert more than once in 24 hrs since a long time ago. So... since all that was not responded to, I felt I had cause for complaint. One more thing interests me: in the light of that appeal, is there any sense attempting the route of that template you linked? And for the record, I would still be extremely interested in what Sandstein thought of my response to his three arguments. --Asdfg12345 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article

Why did you delete Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel without there being any consensus that I saw at the deletion discussion? None of the points I brought up were addressed, and there was no warning from you that you were deleting it, so that I could back-up my work. Jmj713 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel is that there was consensus for deletion. No warning was required, because you know that deletion discussions may be closed at any time after seven days (WP:DP#Deletion discussion). I recommend that you wait until the novel is formally announced or covered in more detail by the media; you will be able to uncontroversially ask for a restoration of the article then. If you still disagree with my closure, you may contest it at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  06:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, I would like to make a new proposal about Arbitration enforcement for I/P conflict articles. May I please ask you, where would be the right place to do it? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That depends - what is your proposal?  Sandstein  07:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a general change in the sanctions themselves. I am not going to talk about any user in particular. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The forum to request changes to arbitral decisions is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. You will need to convince the Arbitration Committee to make the changes that you propose.  Sandstein  06:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it seems like they are talking about particular users, which I am not going to do. Do I still have to go there? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Yes, Requests/Amendment is the forum to request changes to arbitral decisions whether or not the decision concerns specific editors.  Sandstein  17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Formatting error on AE?

Hi Sandstein, could you please look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Meowy - below that users AE thread is a new thread for AE, but it does not seem to want to format properly. Could you please take a look at it for me. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if Russavia can file this AE request because of his editing restriction. The last thing I saw was this: [7]. If needed, I am ready to answer.

With regard to several articles he mentioned, all my edits were fully explained and discussed at the article talk pages. They were made to improve the content and according to our policies. And it least in one case, I struggled with a vandal. At least one of the users involved did almost nothing in this project except following my edits.

With regard to the second claim by Russavia, I had an email exchange with another person (I do not even know his real name) who suggested to make a number of specific changes in several articles on the Chechen subjects I am well familiar with. I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I never acted as "meatpuppet". All edits were made by me, I verified all sources (which does not prevent some occasional errors), and I am willing to discuss any changes as time allows. This is all consistent with WP:IAR and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Which exactly policy did I violate?Biophys (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Russavia, the formatting issue seems to be resolved now. Biophys, please make any statements with respect to Russavia's request in the WP:AE thread, not here. If you believe Russavia's request violates the sanctions that apply to Russavia, as indeed it might, you may make a separate enforcement request on WP:AE about that.  Sandstein  20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not want filing any AE requests to avoid unnecessary confrontation.Biophys (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My "topic ban" expired a week or so ago. The editing restriction mentioned by Biophys above was a partial lifting of the topic ban (which has now expired). Thanks also Sandstein, User:Amalthea‎ was kind enough to help with the formatting. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to note that the ban has expired.  Sandstein  20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Embassy in Moscow

I am currently reformatting List of diplomatic missions in Russia to add dates of establishment of embassies and other missions, and I am missing the date for the establishment of the Swiss embassy in Moscow. The Moscow mission website doesn't have the precise information that I need, but it does state that relations were restarted in 1946 - although relations resumed in that date, the date of establishment of the embassy may be different - e.g. USSR and UAE established diplomatic relations in 1971, but it wasn't until 1987 that the UAE opened an embassy in Moscow. As I believe you are Swiss, and because you definitely speak German, would you possibly be able to help with finding a definitive date (year) that the Swiss embassy in Moscow was established? Your help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The date of establishment of the embassy was 1946. The first source I could find through Google is  Sandstein  20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, a big help. Can I ask what your search term was for this? I have some other "german" related searches to find, and it may come in handy for when English and Russian searches don't yield the required results. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked for "schweiz botschaft moskau 1946" (switzerland embassy moscow 1946), operating under the assumption that the embassy was most likely established in 1946, and it turned out that it was. The French equivalent, "suisse ambassade moscou 1946", would also have worked.  Sandstein  21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jano rajmond (talk · contribs)

Haggar was, at the time, a prolific page move vandal, and to circumvent the restriction on new accounts (i.e non autoconfirmed) being able to move pages, he registered new accounts and would make 10 edits to their user page, before commencing page move vandalism. This was also done with sleeper accounts, those that had never been used and for a while, it was routine to keep an eye on accounts making a number of edits to their userpage in quick succession.

It may well be the case that this user has no involvement, but I'm suspicious that the account was registered in June 2007, no edits were made with the account until June 2008, and now the unblock request comes in March 2010. I don't believe the account would pose a serious risk to the encyclopedia now, with the new mechanisms in place to prevent page move vandalism etc, so I've no objection to the user being unblocked. Nick (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense, and the user fits that pattern. I'm declining unblock.  Sandstein  13:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I am the person who possesed the account User:iaaasi and I want to ask you a favor:

I understood my mistakes and the reasons for my block and I changed my behaviour. Since I started my new account, User:Ddaann2, I started making only constructive edits, as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ddaann2. Even if i made all my edits in good faith, the user User:Squash_Racket reverts my edits, even if it's obvious that they are constructive, judging them by the author, not by their content. He claims that I am a banned user and I have no right to contribute on wikipedia (a fact which is theoretically true)

Can you please check my last contributions on the new account and unblock my old one if it is possible? I am not here to make disruptive edits. Thanks in advance (Ddaann2 (Ddaann2 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Indef-blocked for block evasion, advice left on user talk page.  Sandstein  14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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 [8]. 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)

[9]. 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?[10]or this [11]. 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 [[12]]. 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 [13].--— 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 [14] [15]?--— 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 [16] 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 [17]. 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." [18]) 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." [19], while the actual statement is at [20]) or to repeated accuse another editor of POV pushing (making statements such as "You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [21] and "as you try to POV push into article" [22])? 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." [23] 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 ([24] and [25]) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" [26], 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 [27] 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." [28]) 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." [29], while the actual statement is at [30]) or to repeated accuse another editor of POV pushing (making statements such as "You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [31] and "as you try to POV push into article" [32])?
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." [33] 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 ([34] and [35]) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" [36], 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 [37].
• Loosmark accused me of bad faith editing ("your edit is nothing but a provocation." [38]).
• Loosmark repeatedly accused me of POV pushing ("You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [39] and "as you try to POV push into article" [40]).
• Loosmark lied about my posts ("you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard"" [41], my statement is at [42]).
• Loosmark repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ([43] and [44]) 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 [45]; placed on civility parole in December, with subsequent block [46]; most recently blocked a week and civility restriction reset per AE thread in January [47]. 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

Pointless drama collapsed.  Sandstein  12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

Thank you. Regards,  Sandstein  12:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Block on 98.206.138.33

I'm considering lowering the length of the block you just placed there as I don't think it's the same person behind that IP as the person behind the IP's previous block in February. Thoughts? –MuZemike 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections, if that's what you think is likelier.  Sandstein  19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

E-rara.ch

Thanks for the article on E-rara.ch. A small detail: you write: "The scanned works are made available in 300 dpi resolution as downloadable PDF files or as individual images through a web browser gallery". Not all works are viewable as individual images through a web browser gallery. E.g. the works from the Geneva library are only presented as PDFs. I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning: you decide. And then, should something be added about the rather odd Terms of Use? Calmansi (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the recently uploaded Geneva books do have miniature view: http://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g. Yes, the terms of use are invalid, since the content is all in the public domain by age, but we can't really say so in the article unless we cite a reliable source that says so (see WP:NOR).  Sandstein  22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mkbdtu

I have declined the next WP:RFU because all he has done is copied your provisos and put "I will not" in front of them, essentially. To me, that doesn't evidence any understanding. FYI. SGGH ^ping! 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Would you mind popping by Nahum Shahaf? User: RomaC and I seem to be having a disagreement over whether her comments about Mr. Shahaf constitute a BLP vio, see here. Indeed, it would be my contention that the atmosphere in general on that page has been teetering along the edge of unacceptability for a while now. Roma has requested that I go to an admin, so I've chosen you. If you find the comments and general tone there acceptable, I will leave them be, For the record, I can't recall our ever having interacted directly before, but I may be mistaken. Cheers. IronDuke 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fell on deaf ears, but thanks just the same. IronDuke 02:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

HighKing

There are other editors with a history of using IP socks to delete British Isles. HighKing may have many faults but he is not a sockmaster, I think it was a little harsh to refuse his unblock request. --Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But what are his "many faults"? That's an unfair description of him again, and you know it upsets him (and me too as I've said). I'm not aware of him reverting like this before, and the abuse he gets is quite serious. You ought to know how admin build up their appraisals of people, and HK may have been given the extended block for socking (which we all know he wouldn't do) partly through 'hearsay'. Fortunately we've witnessed something rarely seen - an admin apology. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin has requested a CU so you can ignore the above --Snowded ^TALK 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Sandstein. In unblocking HighKing, Ryan boo-boobed, as the unblock which was supposed to have already taken effect, won't happen until way latter today. Would you fix the blooper? 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, autoblock lifted.  Sandstein  05:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legion_in_popular_culture

Five deletes (six including the nom) versus four keeps - every single keep being WP:ITSNOTABLE without a single policy-based reason for keeping? This article, as pointed out, is 100% WP:OR. Black Kite 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the keeps were weak, generally variants on the theme of ILIKEIT, but so were the deletes, generally variants on the theme of IHATEIT (e.g., "trivial listcruft"). A bunch of weak opinions either way is not consensus for anything. WP:OR would have been a strong argument, but the article contains no original research, which is described as "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". The article is just a list of works where that quote has been used (assertions for which the works themselves are adequate sources) and does not substantially advance any arguments or opinions.  Sandstein  21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's surely not how we work here. Could I therefore post a list of works in which the word "cucumber" is used and call it an article? Black Kite 21:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You could, but you should not, see WP:POINT and WP:WAX. The question for me as the closing admin is not whether the Legion list is crap or not, or whether we ought to have cucumber-themed lists, but only whether we have consensus to delete the Legion list, which we have not.  Sandstein  21:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I would, of course. But this is the sort of thing that gives the lie to this being an encyclopedia, isn't it? It's just a collection of utterly uncited trivia and much of it isn't even relevant to the original Biblical Legion - in other words, it's just a collection of uses of a phrase in random locations. At which point does that make an encyclopedia article? It doesn't, does it? Sigh. Black Kite 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys thread

Hello, Sandstein.

Do you possibly have any idea why admins are not closing Biophys thread — are they too scared of closing it for some reason?

Could you please answer, why aren't you doing anything about the thread?

Best regards, ellol (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why me and not any of the other 1,600 admins? But as it happens I just commented at AE before I saw this message by you.  Sandstein  16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the edits were simultaneous. Thanks! ellol (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion discussion

You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AE thread

Sandstein, thank you for alerting me at to your comment at AE, I have responded there. I hope you are well, -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast reply.  Sandstein  22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Please have a look and give some comments:User:Arilang1234/Comparison between written English and written Chinese Draft Arilang ^talk 06:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak Chinese and can't offer an opinion on this draft.  Sandstein  06:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that indef block

Thank you for blocking User:Fanoftheworld. I can imagine that an indefinite block is not a decision arrived easily, but I think you did the right thing. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Amen. Sandcherry (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Matthead at it... yet again

Please check the latest anti-Polish rant here: [48].  Dr. Loosmark  19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

After a quick review I don't see how that is problematic. Sounds like a content dispute.  Sandstein  19:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"It seems to me that our Andrew Serafin, keeper of hundreds of socks, (and probably many Polish editors of en-WP who had emigrated before 1990), was educated by 20th century Polish communist national propaganda, aimed both against Germans and against historical truth."  Dr. Loosmark  20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmh. I am currently not in the mood to have another Polish-German nationalist dramafest on my talk page, sorry. If you believe this is actionable, and looked at in isolation it may well be, please report it on the appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:WQA, WP:CCN or WP:AE.  Sandstein  20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Header inserted here

Hi Sandstein! I am Capybara123 and I have a question. What do i say to the idiots i know that say wikipedia is unreliable! Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capybara123 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They are right. It is unreliable. Please read our article Wikipedia#Reliability.  Sandstein  22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sulmues, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This talk page is not part of the dispute resolution process. Please take the discussion to the appropriate venue as per that process.  Sandstein  10:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

This user's ability to create new battlegrounds is nothing short of amazing. Whether it is inane merger proposals [49] accompanied by talkpage rants [50] as a way of getting around AfD, or adding articles that have nothing to do with Albania to the Albania TF in a tendentious manner [51] [52] [53] [54] and then using inflammatory language on the TF page to rally the troops [55] [56], it just doesn't stop. Here he is adding these articles to the TF public watchlist [57]. At Pyrros Dimas, a BLP article, he's been at it for months [58]. Just when things had quieted down a bit, he has now managed to mis-read WP:MOSBIO and he has started the nonsense all over again [59]. His proposal has so far been ignored, so he is now threatening to make the changes anyway [60], even though it has only been a few hours since his original post. It's pretty clear he won't stop until he has his way in that article. Here is aggressively editing another flashpoint article [61] while admonishing others to go to the talkpage. But probably the worst of all is this post to another user's talkpage, urging him to create a new battleground article [62]. And this is in just the last two days! It just doesn't end with this guy, it's like his mind can't stop coming up with ways to create new battlegrounds and generate wikidrama. Last time he got away on the thinnest of technicalities. He should have heeded your warning, but apparently he has taken the fact that he got away with it as an endorsement. Though he has also made positive contributions, I believe he causes far more harm to the project than good. I am now convinced that there won't be peace and quiet as long as this user is allowed to edit Albania-related topics. Please do something, this is becoming intolerable. Athenean (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't reply but after reading this I decided to join this discussion. Sulmues posted a talkpage message(which Athenean called nonsense) and then said that if no one replies he will make edits(which Athenean percied as a "threat"). At Filiates I see that Alexikoua made a huge edit and got reverted and was told to take it to the talkpage(which is the normal procedure as I've been told many times already), so I don't see how Sulmues is being "aggresive". That message to Mladifilozof as far as anyone who doesn't want to accuse other editors can see contains nothing violating the policy. I told Athenean in another talkpage to take it easy, which obviously he didn't do. Basically, as far as anyone can tell this is (another bad faith & harrasive) attempt to get Sulmues blocked from Albania-related articles, in which Sulmues has made very good contributions as far as I can tell.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this one (by Athenean) prove my point that people aren't calm enough many times or are harassing other users intentionally or unintentionally [63]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is best handled through a properly formed and explained report at the relevant noticeboard, such as WP:WQA, WP:CCN or WP:AE. Please provide all links to previous dispute resolution attempts in such a report.  Sandstein  22:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

About Filiates it was user:Sulmues that made a huge edit [[64]], without initiating any discussion in talk page. It's not the first time Zjari. tries to misinform (both here and in irc).Alexikoua (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion review for Black Rock Shooter

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Black Rock Shooter. 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. Only dead fish go with the flow. (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Report

Athenean reported again Sulmues [65]. Now I think I have gathered all the data required to make a similar report, so where should I add it?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the advice at WP:DR, especially WP:SEEKHELP. You should make a report to WP:AE only if you believe that you can explain clearly and prove with diffs that the requirements for sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions are met.  Sandstein  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It'll take me a couple of days to understand the procedure completely.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Imposing interaction ban

Ok, now I'm confused. The protocol ask that there will be opening admin and closing admin. Now, you imposed sanctions, I just wanted to make sure that it doesn't contradict with any of WP policies/you are an admin. Please accept this question with understanding.--Gilisa (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Which protocol?  Sandstein  14:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about interaction ban

May I please ask, if the implementation of this very right suggestion is too much to ask for? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not require any administrator implementation. It is, however, a good suggestion.  Sandstein  14:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you would or you would not implement that? Because I was not talking about this in general, but have rather very specific concerns in particular.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It needs no implementation because it is already implicit in the interaction ban. You three are banned from interacting with each other for whatever reason, including as a reaction to material that may already be on your talk pages. (You may of course remove or archive that material as with any other talk page content on your talk pages).  Sandstein  16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understood what you meant. I sent you email. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your mail, no, your interaction ban prohibits you from removing content from the talk page of the user at issue. Just drop it.  Sandstein  16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean me, I meant you, but thanks for the response. Dropped it already.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No result

Thank you for your findings at WP:AN3. The same user also reported me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Flash_mobs_and_editing_in_bad_faith. Unfortunately it appears the admin there did not undergo the same review of all the facts and took lightly and perhaps with some attitude the whole situation -- and did little to resolve the issue. So once again, thank you. Mkdw^talk 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you email.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

None received.  Sandstein  14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for letting me know. I will send you another one later on, when I have a time. Sorry I bother you all the time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Finished my defense in the new accusation in wp:ae

Hi Sandstein, I am done with my defense. You might want to read it and make your decision. I have faith that you won't topic ban me, but I'll rest the case to you and I'll respect your decision. As I have stated in my defense, the only thing that I have done improperly is to have tagged with Albania TF the Pyrrhus of Epirus article. I did so because there are two cities in Albania that he has founded and there is lots of archaeological research in Albania in those two cities Antigonia (Chaonia) and Butrint, so I thought I'd be useful to report the Albanian research, but creating a battle was far from my intentions. I had no idea that the Greek editors would get so upset with that. Still, I have apologized for that in the talk page of the article, in my defense, and also I am apologizing in your talk page here. I have also striken my related edits.

I have nothing else to write. Thank you for your time! --sulmues talk contributions 15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence, but it is not necessarily my call to make. We have 1,600+ admins, and any of them may choose to respond to any AE request.  Sandstein  17:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

Hi Sandstein, it is to inform you about the violation of interaction ban: [66]. In the above edit the user reverted the text: " In August 2009 the head of antiquities unveiled the plans of the restoration and at the same time denied that the restoration was planned to lower Jewish anger over Culture Minister Farouk Hosny remarks, in which he declared: "I'd burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt.". That text in question was added by me here, which means that the user reverted my edit in the article I started. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  05:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein,

Although I am not a new editor on Wikipedia, but I am rather new editor in area of conflict, and there some policies I'd like to get clarification on, please.

On March 4 a user left that message at my talk page.

Yesterday I left that message at an administrator talk page.

As you see I used the same formatting.

The question is, if such messages are considered to be template, and if it was "highly rude and uncivil" of me to "template" the admin?

If the answer is "yes" could you please explain to me how should I have known the message is considered to be template,

if no actual template (I mean "{{") was used.

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this is template text can be inferred from its impersonal tone and because it contains the comment "<!-- Template:uw-npa1 -->" left by the corresponding template. Whether it is rude or uncivil to leave such templates depends on the circumstances; opinions differ (WP:DTTR, WP:TTR). These are not policies; the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Civility.  Sandstein  08:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My first question was a general question about the policy. Because the answer you've given was not black and white, my second and hopefully the last question for that subject is more specific. Would you be so kind to take a deeper look at the circumstances of me leaving the message at the atministrator talk page, and tell me, if in that particular situation under the particular circumstances it was "highly rude and uncivil" of me to "template" the admin? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer not to get involved in personal disputes between others, unless required to in my administrative capacity, and therefore refrain from expressing an opinion in this matter. You may, however, ask for the opinions of others at WP:WQA.  Sandstein  10:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please accept my apology for putting you into difficult situation. I had to know better than that.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My explanation

I've noticed my recent edits on the article Palestinian freedom of movement was mentioned here. I believe I should explain my edit to the article. I first learned about the article this nomination's entry, when I was working on my own nomination for DYK. The nomination was declined because of POV. From my own experience I know how unfair it feels, if DYK nomination is declined. So I remembered I uploaded the very relevant image, and added that image and some more info to the article in question. I've never reverted the user edit. By the time I added my edit the other user tried to lower POV as well. At least one other editor said they will support my edit. As a matter of fact the article was nominated for deletion, but I have never voted on the request. If you believe I should be blocked for my edit I will accept the punishment and your judgment with no complains. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say few more words about Avenue involvement please. Avenue is a native speaker of English, while I am not. The only things Avenue is mostly doing is correcting my English (grammar and style). I was the one, who added the piece in question in, as it is seen from the differences I provided above. So called not sourced material is actually well sourced and was restored to the article as it was explained here. It is still in the article now. Avenue is a very nice and a very kind person, who has absolutely nothing against the user. Please see here. I am very, very sorry for all the troubles I am unwillingly put you into, for all the time the incident is taken from you, and for dragging Avenue into that mess. If you feel that topic-ban me on I/P conflict articles for a month or so would help to resolve the situation, please do ban me. My only concern now is your time and Avenue good name, and I mean it. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've been involved with the block of User:Notpietru ...

... I bring to your attention some block evasion on his part, the details of which are here. Cheers,  RGTraynor  17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, thanks, but block evasion of a block that has since expired?  Sandstein  17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

new thread at WP:AN that relates to you.

I want to be clear that I'm not "coming after you" but I have some serious concerns about the wisdom of the new policies with regard to arbitration enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Procedure re AE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Sandstein, is there any doubt in your mind that wikifan is aware of the pertinent sanctions? Unomi (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the sanctions log contains an entry of a 2008 notification, but as explained at AE, your request does not appear actionable to me.  Sandstein  14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this thread. He is consistently denying taking any responsibility for his edits. Unomi (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This comment is unfair, there is no content dispute that I am trying to get the upper hand in, I am merely asking that he takes responsibility for his actions. The low quality of the source was pointed out immediately, he chose to ignore it and I chose to avoid edit warring over it, taking it to RS/N and then asking him to revert when it was found of poor quality. This is a fairly straightforward case of poor conduct on his behalf. If you look on my talk page you can see that at the end he admits to not having read even the ITIC source which he is recommended to use. I respectfully ask that you to strike the part of your comment where you insinuate it is a content dispute. Unomi (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that your report is too confused for me to take seriously. You refer to consensus at WP:RSN, but do not link to any relevant discussions on that board. You also do not provide, as requested by Stifle, any diffs of actual edits to actual articles that you believe are based on unreliable sources. Absent such evidence, I see no need to change my assessment at this time.  Sandstein  17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is his pattern of specious argumentation. Look at the thread on my talk page,

• 13:01 at the end I give one specific edit and I tell him that the numbers don't match the source.
• 13:05 His response is to repeat the question of which edit.
• 13:11 I remind him that I have just given him 1 particular edit.
• 13:06 He concedes that I have given him an edit but insists that I have not told him what is wrong with it.
• 13:20 I repeat that the numbers don't match up, with specifics (which shouldn't be necessary as there is only 1 set of numbers that is backed up by sources anyway).
• 13:36 He again asks me which specific edit and then proceeds to discuss an edit completely different from the one I just pointed out to him thrice, he also claims that the 1,100 number is sourced to ITIC and not JVL.
• 13:43 I point out that the 1,100 number is not supported by ITIC.
• 13:50 He asks why it doesn't support stating that he has seen many graphs that add up to 1,100 and, crucially, the PDF doc. gives roughly the same amount, no? (he has not read the ITIC source), he again asks which edit I am referring to.
• 13:59 I point out that there is only 1 pertinent graph, on page 55 and it adds up to 521.

As of this edit Wikifan has not edited since. Something is very wrong here. Unomi (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not sanction editors for "specious argumentation". We block them for disrupting the project. These are just edits to your talk page. I still see no diffs of edits to articles or links to RSN discussions.  Sandstein  18:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Specious argumentation and stonewalling is disruptive, please refer to Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing points 2 and 4. I never asked him to be blocked, I asked him to be reminded to be careful when sourcing. here is the edit that is being discussed above. It is clear that he has not read the source. Unomi (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please also see [Wikipedia:Etiquette] and note Do not ignore questions., Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste and Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check. Please have a look at the sources at List of modern conflicts in the Middle East Unomi (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I still see nothing but a disagreement about whether the website http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org is a reliable source. I have no opinion about that, but that in itself is evidently not a matter requiring arbitration enforcement. This thread is closed; please supply any additional relevant evidence in the AE thread.  Sandstein  19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.