User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/April

What to do when sources are cast in doubt.

Sandstein, in your estimation, when an editor calls into doubt the quality of a source, is it the duty of the person using the source to bring it to RS/N or the duty of the person casting doubt on the quality? Unomi (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is no one's duty, but either editor may proceed as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.  Sandstein  19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, you don't see it as being the duty of the editor adding information to ensure, and if challenged, prove(as in RS/N) that it is properly sourced? Unomi (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The applicable policy is WP:BURDEN, so yes, whoever adds information must ensure that it is reliably sourced or it may be removed. But when people disagree whether a cited source is reliable, this is a normal content disagreement and needs to be resolved via WP:DR. You can't "prove" anything on Wikipedia; the best you can do is to get editor consensus one way or the other, and both parties to such a disagreement should attempt to do so.  Sandstein  20:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, duty and prove were poorly chosen words. Would you agree that the way to resolve issues of reliability of sources is through RS/N? I expect that you do, and if so you can see why after User:Itsmejudith, who is a RS/N regular, and not involved in I/P as far as I know, held it to be a poor source, it ceased to be a content dispute. It became a problem of tendentious argumentation and ignoring RS/N consensus. Insisting on using poor sourcing is not a content dispute scenario, it is a behavioral problem and a failure to adhere to our core policies. Wikifan may have disputed the finding of RS/N, but if so he made no move to argue his case there. My error seems to have been to believe that there was a better course of action than simply reverting from the get go. I find unfortunate that I have given you clear evidence of him not reading the sources he claims to back up his edit, yet you seem unwilling to remind him to use proper sourcing. Unomi (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is this WP:RSN discussion that you refer to?  Sandstein  21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the thread. You can see that it has become vastly more populated since the AE started, so perhaps something did come of that after all. Also, the relative finding on the JVL sources has no bearing on claiming that a 2nd source would back those numbers up. That said, wikifan has approached me on my talkpage and I am willing to let the AE go. I would however still ask you to strike the comment where you label it an attempt to gain advantage in a content dispute. Unomi (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi's statement that RSN issued a "finding" is incorrect, and his statement that IMJ is uninvolved in I-P issues is also incorrect. On the other hand, an actual RSN regular who is actually uninvolved (to the point of having zero edits, to my knowledge) considers the source to be possibly reliable, and certainly reliable enough to bear mention with specific attribution. You wouldn't know that from Unomi's statements, of course, because he's got a dog in this fight. Just saying! Hipocrite (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to see into the future, at the point in time when I filed the AE there hadn't been any action on the RS/N for over 24 hours and I was unaware that IMJ was not uninvolved, if indeed she isn't. RS/N got started again when Jaakobou commented on the AE. This is fairly clear to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension. Just saying. Out of curiosity who is this RS/N regular that you mention? Unomi (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[1]. Hipocrite (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm.. are you referring to yourself or was that the wrong diff? You hate my guts :p I could be saying that the earth is round and you would probably still argue against me ;) The point is, its not a vote, decisions such as these should be made on the strength of the argument. Just because there are some media outlets that have written The seder is celebrated on the first night of Passover, according to the Jewish Virtual Library .[2] that doesn't necessarily make them an RS by default. Its not like I am talking about blacklisting the site, I would just like to see that we use particular attribution and ideally find better sources. Unomi (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus in that RSN discussion either in favor of or against the site's reliability. The entire issue is a content dispute and does not require arbitration enforcement. Unomi, please do not file frivolous AE reports again, and if you want to continue discussing this issue, take it off my talk page.  Sandstein  05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, at the time when I made the AE request the consensus at RS/N had been that it was a poor source for more than 24 hours. I categorically deny that I brought a content dispute to ae. It may be that 24 hours of no response to RS/N was too short a time to wait, but it doesn't affect the fact that wikifan had not read the source. I too grow weary of repeating myself, I hope and wish that you will address the issues that I raise. Unomi (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on deletion

Hello, just wondering why you deleted the page Francois Raffoul. If you look at it objectively (17 books total as authored, edited and translated, 40 articles, 100 lectures and keynotes, named a "Rainmaker" at LSU, Book series editor), I think it is fair to say it is notable, or at least as notable as comparable pages on wikipedia... Would you consider reinstating it?--Lesbossons (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was community consensus to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Raffoul. I am just executing that consensus. You may ask for a recreation at WP:DRV if you have new sources attesting to his notability under our guideline WP:BIO.  Sandstein  05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hi Sandstein,

I'd like to bring to your attention that the other party may be in violation of her interaction ban. She commented about me and my English skills at AN/I. Please check it. Regards,--Gilisa (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Factomancer was describing a prior conflict with Breein1007 which came out of a prior interaction with Gilisa, not commenting on Gilisa directly. Interpreted broadly might cover this anyways, but we didn't phrase it so the restricted parties could never mention the name of the other party ever again on-wiki.

I'm dealing with someone else who's itching to get involved in this at the moment, but I'd like to get this clarified a bit going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was the "interpreted broadly" part in your restriction that I considered relevant here, plus the reference was not made in a neutral context, but in the context of a prior dispute with Gilisa. I think for this interaction ban to work at all the parties really need to be serious about staying the hell out of each other's way.  Sandstein  06:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely in the context, this purely factual reference was neither provocative nor disruptive. The complaint by Gilisa was unnecessary, and I thgink you should have ignored it; this is an overreaction. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Roland. A little excessive SandStein. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please re-factor

Sandstein, please re-factor or substantiate:

1. Your comments to the effect that I sought wikifan blocked. This is clearly not true.
2. Your comments to the effect that I was seeking an out of process advantage in a content dispute. The content was not in dispute in any meaningful sense of the word at the time of my filing.

Cordially, Unomi (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming repetitive. I and two other admins (in the AE thread) have expressed their opinion that your AE report was not actionable because it concerned a content dispute. Nothing of the above convinces me otherwise. You may be made subject to sanctions if you continue to make frivolous reports. I will not comment on this matter further.  Sandstein  10:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WQA

I am sorry that it had to come to this. I hope that we can move forward in a fashion more in line with the 5 pillars. Unomi (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Direktor evaded Blocking

Dear Sandstein, i`m reported that blocking user:Direktor has evaded the 48 hrs., reversing some pages for the Republic of Dubrovnik and Dubrovnik, this is the link of Direktor IP 83.131.220.241.[3] --186.105.66.150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.66.150 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a matter for WP:SPI, I'm no checkuser, sorry.  Sandstein  16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban enforcement in general

Here's a recent and rather interesting example of the interaction ban enforcement [4]. The blocked user is very valued, contest contributor, who submitted around 100 feature pictures.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Hi Sandstein, I was hoping you could give me some insight on the intricacies of WP:OUTING. Would posting what you believe to be a user's IP address(es) on a user talk page and using this to infer their country of residence apply as a violation of this policy? Furthermore, would posting specific accusations of sockpuppetry (ie: I think user XX is a sockpuppet of user YY) break this rule too when not submitted as a SPI, but rather on a user talk page? Thanks for your help, Breein1007 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Yes, unless the user has himself voluntarily made his IP public. (2) No, since this is not personal information.  Sandstein  05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. I was referring to comments that were left here: [5]. Admin EdJohnston advised me to submit a request for oversight and that it wasn't a violation of outing. I submitted the request but nothing has happened yet... Breein1007 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any update? I submitted a request yesterday and haven't heard anything. I need to know how to remove the records of those comments. Breein1007 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an oversighter and can't make the process go any faster. You could probably find out which oversighters are currently active and mail them directly, though.  Sandstein  17:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Sandstein, I sent you email again. You did not get one last time. If you would not get this one either, may I please ask you to check on your spam folder? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I've now seen an e-mail by you of March 28, but I have not received a more recent one. I don't know whether I've alredy replied to that e-mail, so, no, you are prohibited from removing content from that talk page, whether by yourself or by proxy through others.  Sandstein  20:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The email from today was about absolutely different matter. I've chosen the option to get the copy myself, and I did get the copy at once. It is really strange you did not get it. Maybe there's something wrong with your server?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange. I've now sent myself an e-mail from another e-mail account (it worked) and through the Wikipedia interface (it did not). So, if the subject is unsuitable for public consumption, you should try e-mailing another admin.  Sandstein  20:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important for me that you get my email. Please do consider responding to my email (the one you got) that I will be able to email directly to you. I understand that you would not like to disclose your email address to such problematic editor as I am :(, but I promise as soon as I respond your email, I will delete it from my mail box, and I will never to bother you again, or if you'd rather not, let's wait a little bit longer, and maybe you will get my email from today in a day or so. I do like you to get it, but it is not something that is urgent, not at all. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a strong dislike for doing Wikipedia business off-wiki, and so prefer not to receive e-mail if it can at all be avoided, especially by users who I have interacted with in an administrative capacity and with whom may need to do so again. If there is anything that you need to say to an administrator in confidence, I would prefer that you find someone else. Thanks,  Sandstein  04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Content on User Pages

Hey Sandstein. Can you point to policy backing this edit? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is presumably some rule to that effect, but I would have thought it to be common sense that a user talk page (or other nonarticle/-nonuserspace page) is not the place to draft articles. This inconveniences other users who try to use the talk page for its intended purpose, i.e., communication. The same reason would apply to anyone who would insert a long draft article into the body of another talk page such as WP:ANI; they'd quickly be reverted and probably blocked if they repeated this. Besides, the draft article contained at least two images of unclear copyright status.  Sandstein  16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is presumably some rule to that effect, !

Yeah, I'd agree it's not good form to do what he's doing. But I think User_page#Editing_of_other_editors_user_and_user_talk_pages would suggest stripping the content might not be appropriate. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unless it's helpful. One could also consider drafting articles on one's user talk page while blocked a form of block evasion; after all, blocked editors are not supposed to edit Wikipedia and are allowed access to their talk page only because they may need to request unblock.  Sandstein  16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh... "helpful".... A word that can be interpretted in so many ways. Helpful to whom I wonder. Anyways, I think I've made my point and taken some of yours. My best to you sir. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:72.160.188.204

Hello. You might want to lock that talk page as the IP user is apparently not too happy with our unblocking policies. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pyongyang (restaurant chain)

On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pyongyang (restaurant chain), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Israeli / Palestinian editors

Some aspects have calmed down since I started WP:ANI#Enough but not all, including the new AE report/request. I was actually considering a 31 hour full protect on some articles to try and separate things, but on review it seems like it's moved into project and user talk space conflict largely, so even article protection won't help much.

I don't know that an ARBPIA enforcement spree will particularly help, or is useful, but your AE experience may be relevant to judging that.

Let me know what you're thinking, I'm looking for input and consciously not doing anything until I get a good night's rest and review again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I've replied at the ANI thread.  Sandstein  10:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on ANI. Perhaps this will all calm down overnight. That is probably a forlorn hope, but much preferable than having to wade in.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Purim!

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

Backdated timestamp to allow archiving.  Sandstein  00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Factomancer block

Two people have commented in support of his complaint that the interaction ban doesn't cover making reference to the other party, with one of them saying it seems like a severe overreaction on your part. I have put it on hold if you would like to comment. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I've commented there.  Sandstein  16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[6] Does the user need to clear their cache or something technical like that?Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know.  Sandstein  08:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I thought I would mention here since you were the blocking admin. More than likely a glitch and the user can throw up a Help template. Apologies for bugging you even more on a dispute you are sick of. Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean, I really don't know, the interface displays no active blocks, so he should be able to edit. If he is autoblocked he should receive an autoblock message telling him what to do.  Sandstein  08:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I wasn't giving you a hard time. I meant that you looked sick of dealing with it from all of the other messages. Don't worry about it :) Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging AEs

Hey Sand, 1) I'm concerned that 2 seperate AEs are being merged. Can we try to seperate them out? I fear that someone might miss comments about themselves as they are not in the right section. 2) As we've had calm and collected conversations before regarding contentious I/P editors (see above "Content on User Pages"), I'm a little suprised you would support topic banning me. NickCT (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Yes, it's a bit confusing, but we currently seem to prefer discussing both sides of the problem, as it were, in one place. (2) Well, the one does not rule out the other, does it? Much probably depends on how you four react right now.  Sandstein  20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

2) No 1 does not rule out the other, but if you've experienced an editor in the past to be calm and level headed when debating, you should probably give them the benefit of the doubt when another editor complains that they are not.

Frankly Sandstein, I wonder whether you are best person to preside over this matter. From my brief experience with you, you seem to come down more harshly on editors on one side of the I/P debate. Would you prove me wrong and point to an example where you've spoken strongly against someone blatantly pushing pro-Israel POV? If not, might I respectfully suggest you recuse yourself from this issue? NickCT (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, both sides (or rather, their on-wiki holy warriors) tend to annoy me just about equally. But just off the top of my head, look at the block logs of Mbz1 (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), AnonMoos (talk · contribs), all recently blocked by me for disruption related to what you refer to as pro-Israel POV.  Sandstein  21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well admittedly you do seem willing to pursue editors in blantant policy violations involving pro-Israel/anti-Arab POV pushing. Interesting to note that two of these examples were BLP violations. You are perhaps particularly concerned with this policy?

Frankly though, I think the shinanigans you're protecting against in the examples you offer are of a slightly different nature and degree to what you seem willing to criticize Verx, Supreme, and myself for. Your actions remind me somewhat of User:Malik_Shabazz, who though he clearly leans to one side, often shows neutralish tendencies.

My suggestion to you, as to him is that you can win more friends and quiet more detractors if you make an extra effort towards moderation ( this detractor included ). You might start by noting that on top of this recent AE, Mbz1 has a long history arguing with admins over trivia. Take this gem for example. You really think you ought to be arbitraily grouping those 4/5 editors together in the current AE? My call was for minor slaps on the wrist to be administered.

Regardless, the AE seems to have concluded without blood being drawn. My best, NickCT (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You assume that I am at all interested in winning friends or quieting detractors among editors involved on either side of AE-type disputes? I am not. But you are right in that the current multiparty mudfest needs more careful consideration, hence my reluctance to hand out indiscriminate topic bans at this point.  Sandstein  22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One should always be concerned with winning friends and quieting detrators. At least in the case of those friends who can, with reasonable effort, be won, and those detractors who can, with reasonable effort, be quietted. Again, my best NickCT (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban question

Would I be able to edit the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) without being blocked again? That includes removing material written by You-Know-Who.

Note that I was editing that article before the interaction ban was suggested.

124.170.123.137 (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Who is this?  Sandstein  10:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Me. Sorry, that was an honest mistake. Factomancer (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You may edit all articles, but you may not revert editors who you are banned from interacting with. A revert, as defined at WP:3RR, is any action that undoes an action by another editor; therefore, you may not remove material previously added by the editors who you are banned from interacting with. If you find that you cannot usefully edit the article under these circumstances, I recommend that you do not edit it at all.  Sandstein  10:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So I can alter or remove material as long as it wasn't added by She(or He)-Who-Will-Remain-Nameless? What if the material was added by someone else then You-Know-Who corrected the spelling or performed some minor alteration on it? Would removing that material count as a revert?

Georgewilliamherbert, who wrote the ban, has said:

I didn't intend to establish a standard that you have to identify the source of any particular text you want to edit and ensure it's not the editor you're prohibited from interacting with. It's extremely hard to meet the latter level of certainty that you're not touching that other person's edits at all.

But that seems to be the standard you are applying here. It seems that now I can't safely edit any significantly large article without going through its entire history and finding out the provenance of each character. Factomancer (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. The same also applies to the others. Of course, the more other people have edited the material and the longer it has been in the article the less its removal can be reasonably construed as a prohibited interaction. But apart from that this is a consequence of your interaction ban. You would need to convince the community to lift that ban in order to remove this restriction.  Sandstein  11:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are going to interpret and apply the interaction ban in a way that it was never intended to be by its author. Fantastic. Factomancer (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The ban applies according to the wording that was approved by the community, not according to any unwritten intentions its author might have had. If you believe the ban is no longer required or should be modified, you may ask the community to modify or lift it.  Sandstein  13:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Should not be this account to be added here just to avoid some unintended confusion?
2. May I please ask, if you read what I wrote about my topic ban, at my talk page? If you do, and decided not to respond, it is perfectly alright. I just wanted to make sure you did.

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) This is not necessary; bans apply to the person, not to the account.

(2) I have now.  Sandstein  15:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested

It's not entirely clear to me what your summary is intended to mean. Are you proposing that I recuse myself altogether from returning problematic hooks from the queue to the suggestions page? If so, I very much doubt I can comply with this request. Removing hooks from the queue for further discussion is part of my responsibility as a DYK administrator, not to return problematic hooks would be tantamount to negligence. I should add that merely returning a hook to the suggestions page in no way gives me an unfair advantage and cannot be considered as an abuse of the tools. It simply means the hook will be subject to closer scrutiny, which surely cannot be construed as in any way harmful to the project.

If on the other hand you simply meant I should not outright delete hooks from the queue but be sure instead to return them to the discussion page, I am certainly happy to assent to that. Although I felt at the time I was justified in deleting Mbz's hook, I quickly acknowledged it was an error of judgement - which we all inevitably make from time to time - and from the fracas that eventuated I had already resolved never to attempt this shortcut again. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, neither. What I recommended is that you do not act in an administrative capacity, e.g. by removing hooks from the queue, in cases where you are involved in a conflict (especially a content disagreement) with the editor who wrote the hook. Instead, you should propose that another administrator do this, in keeping with WP:ADMIN.  Sandstein  07:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you don't mind, I think I am going to have to respectfully decline your recommendation. It is only going to impose an onerous formality upon me that will make it more difficult to effectively do my job, as well as potentially allowing inappropriate hooks to make it to the mainpage. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the requirement for administrators not to take action in situations where they are involved in a dispute is policy, see WP:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools. You are of course free to disregard my recommendation, but if you do so in a topic area covered by arbitration sanctions I can readily imagine this resulting in sanctions against you.  Sandstein  07:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thankyou for clarifying that. I just wanted to know where I stood. I'd be interested to know just what "advantage" you think I might stand to gain from returning a hook from the queue for further discussion, per the policy, but otherwise, I will have to consider filing a request for amendment over this ruling, as I believe it is quite unjustified by the circumstances and only likely to harm the project rather than help it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that my recommendation is a "ruling" subject to an amendment, because it does not restrict you, but only reminds you of existing policy. Administrators may have good administrative reasons to remove a hook from the queue, such as when the hook is in violation of WP:BLP. But if administrators merely disagree with the content of the hook, then removing the hook from the protected queue page amounts to a misuse of administrator tools in order to gain an advantage in the respective content dispute and should be avoided. Removal of a hook undoes the admin action of another admin who had previously added the hook, which is another reason not to do it without very good reason. This is especially so if you are also involved in editing the article or in other content disputes with the same editor. Basically, you need to decide whether you want to get involved into a content discussion (are the sources adequate, is the hook neutrally worded etc.) and refrain from the use of admin tools, or whether you want to act as an administrator and refrain from making content decisions.  Sandstein  07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that you have yet to explain how removing a hook from the queue for further discussion constitutes an "advantage" to the administrator making the removal. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not personally, of course, but a situation where an administrator and another editor disagree about whether a hook or an article is neutral or accurate enough to go on the main page constitutes a content dispute. Because only the administrator is technically capable of removing the hook from the protected queue page, but the other user is not capable of putting it back into the queue, the removal of the hook decides the content dispute in the administrator's favor, and thereby constitutes a misuse of administrator tools to gain an advantage in the content dispute.  Sandstein  08:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, removal of the hook in no way "decides the content dispute in the administrator's favour". The validity of content concerns is decided by consensus on the suggestions page or on the DYK talk page, they are not decided by the administrator removing the hook. That's what removal of the hook is for - to ensure that there is a clear consensus to promote the hook before it is promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the content dispute is to be decided by consensus, but you may not at the same time participate in the content dispute (by offering an opinion about whether the article is neutrally written) and decide, in a manner that is not easily reverted because it involves administrator tools, whether there is consensus to promote the hook. For the same reasons, administrators may not e.g. first !vote in an AfD and then close the same AfD.  Sandstein  08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that removing the hook from the queue "decides" nothing. The decision about whether or not to promote the hook is decided by consensus, not by the admin making the removal. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal may not decide the matter definitively, but it does give an advantage to the side of the content dispute opposed to promotion in that it prevents, at least for the time being, the hook's promotion, and it does so in a way that non-admin editors cannot undo. This is why such a removal, like any other administrative action, should be performed only by administrators who are not involved in the content dispute.

I do not believe that I can explain it much more clearly than that. As I said, you are free to disagree with me in this regard, but you risk sanctions if you use your administrator tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute in an arbitration-covered topic area.  Sandstein  08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but since this is only your interpretation of "advantage", and not one that has ever been recognized in practice by any admin at DYK, then I intend to conform with the prevailing practice and continue removing hooks for further discussion as I deem appropriate. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The question seems to be whether DYK has the same expectation as WP:AFD. Admins closing deletion discussions are charged with determining consensus, but at the same time are expected to separate this administrative role from their editorial role. I don't believe admins could argue one position in a deletion discussion, for instance, and then also close it saying that their decision to close was insignificant because they were simply enacting consensus. If DYK is different then perhaps that is a matter of its history, but in theory, at least, they seem similar. Mackan79 (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same thing at all Mackan, because when an admin closes an AFD, he is making a determination about the outcome of the discussion. But when an admin at DYK removes a hook from the queue to return it to the suggestions page, he is not determining the outcome of the discussion, he is simply ensuring that there is an adequate discussion prior to promotion. A closer analogy to this action would be when someone relists an AFD for further discussion where it failed to attract an adequate discussion the first time. Gatoclass (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Except it was not returned to the suggestion page. It was simply removed from everywhere without a trace and witout ever notifying me.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My comment was not in relation to your hook. I already accepted that deletion of the hook was not in accordance with established practice at DYK (though not in violation of any actual rule) and conceded that it would be best not to take this approach again. The topic of discussion here is in regards to the established practice of returning hooks to the suggestions page, not about an isolated instance where that convention was ignored. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Still sure about your decision to sanction Mbz1 and "advise" Gatoclass, Sandstein? Breein1007 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use my talk page as a battleground. If there continue to be perceived problems with Gatoclass's editing, they can be reported at WP:AE.  Sandstein  16:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I'll keep that in mind. Breein1007 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

I have proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement for deletion, using Twinkle. Unfortunately, the protection of the pages has prevented them being properly tagged. I am requesting you, as an admin, to edit through the protection to properly tag the project page. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, okay, what code should I add?  Sandstein  20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The instructions are at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion - it needs {{mfd}} added at the top. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't normally do this manually. Done.  Sandstein  21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine

To my shame I cannot keep up with the never-ending sprawl of places where given issues are discussed, so could you please notify this: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Desmond Travers at the appropriate venues for monitoring. M.S.A.Irvine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked per username violations, no idea why, I am utterly out of touch with Israel-Palestine stuff. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:WPAE would be such a venue, so I'll do that... after the current deletion discussion is over, if there is still a project left afterwards and if the BLPN discussion agrees that this is problematic conduct that needs further watching. Regards,  Sandstein  22:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am curious, for the I/P stuff, why not just use WP:IPCOLL? it already maintains a list of 'problem articles' and a list of blocks and sanctions imposed on users. Unomi (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That might also be possible, but see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement#Tracking. Also we don't seem to have corresponding projects for the other problem areas, and there are benefits to having a joint framework for all these problem areas, as it encourages the development of a reasonably uniform enforcement practice.  Sandstein  07:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

I'd like to bring to your attention this edit please. The user calls the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), "worthless article" that was not deleted only "due to the prevalence of bloc voting". The user is well aware of the fact that I have started the article, and contributed the most to it . This is the article that was nominated for the deletion by the very same user. The most heated interactions between the two of us have occurred on the article's talk and the article's deletion request. I understand the edit restrictions imposed on me by my interaction ban as being restricted to make any comment on anything concerning the other party that could cause negative feelings and the wish to respond by the other party. The statement in question did cause negative feelings and the wish to respond. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is a violation. Expressing an opinion about an article is not an interaction with you, no matter whether or not you created the article. The point of an interaction ban is not to protect you three editors from negative feelings, it is to protect the rest of us from the disruption generated by you three. Since you are topic-banned anyway, I recommend that you unwatch all potentially conflictual pages so as to prevent these negative feelings.  Sandstein  05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but IMO this situation is very similar to this one:

The user very politely commented on the image File:Raven Manet E2.jpg by Édouard Manet that came from Library of Congress

[7]

and the block which was blocked for the violation of interaction ban.

[8]

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not change my assessment in this case.  Sandstein  07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So a comment like this edit posted by Mbz1 above, which insults and is intended to insult the author of the article (Mbz1), as well as anyone who does not accept Factomancer's personal judgment (it's a worthless article) and referring to others as a "voting bloc," (insulting) does not appear as a battlefield and a "baiting" post to you? Mbz1 is asked to swallow what is clearly (meant to be) a personal insult at the risk of violating the ban herself? Stellarkid (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, your comment here has the effect of continuing the dispute, which is not helpful.  Sandstein  06:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it just doesn't seem fair to me, is all. I see the "baiting" issue as important, since it appears to me to be done with some regularity, and if it is not acknowledged for what it is, it will just continue. But I will say no more. Stellarkid (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban breach?

Is this edit a breach of Mbz's topic ban? It is worth noting that this edit is part of an edit war, in which the same text has been inserted and deleted by several editors over the past couple of days. RolandR (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 Topic Ban Violation

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.

Blocked; please take any further discussion among involved editors off my talk page.

---

Hi there Sandstein, I fear your topic ban on Mbz1 is not being respected ... I am currently in an edit dispute with another editor at article Rothschild family and correctly using the talk page to resolve this. I have just user:Mbz1 noticed has reverted a Zionist/Israel issue] without even bothering to discuss at the talk page and making allegations of POV. After all that's gone on over the last few weeks I fear Mbz1 is not getting the message. Regarding my input to that article, I am avoiding a tit-for tat edit war by using the talk page and will not revert for a day t allow discussion. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a question Sandstein: what is the purpose of the 12 hour clause in the interaction ban, and why is it not being enforced? Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it not?  Sandstein  16:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok scratch that. What is the purpose though? Breein1007 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. You should ask the person who proposed the sanction.  Sandstein  16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting how this process works. A highly partisan editor in the I/P disputes, in this case RolandR, informs on Mbz1 to Sandstein. RolandR has nothing to lose, because if Mbz1 gets blocked, RolandR gets rid of an editing opponent, and if she does not get get blocked RolandR loses nothing and is no worse off than before. Sandstein, and other administrators, in playing along with this revolting process of editing opponents snitching on each other, encourage editors to continue to act like nasty children, and exactly in situations when adult behavior would be so valuable. The entire process is very dysfunctional. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, anon, for the unwarranted personal attack. I may be mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge I have not been involved in any editing dispute with Mbz. If you think I have been, please point out where, and how this invalidates my comment above. Otherwise, please desist from such an assumption of bad faith.

On the matter at hand, I observed that Mbz appeared to be in breach of her topic ban, and asked an independent admin (and one, by the way, who recently blocked me; I didn't look for one I considered to be "sympathetic") whether this was indeed a breach. My comment was later, independently, reinforced by a second editor. If there are sanctions, it is important to all of us that these are observed, and your description of this as "revolting... snitching" is uncalled for. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are an editor who participates on the P side of the I/P dispute articles. You informed on Mbz1 (who edits on the I side of the I/P disputes) to an administrator, and that was apparently with the intent of having her blocked, because that is why users inform. How often have you informed on P side editors for violations of sanctions? 173.52.124.223 (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you have a proposal, I take it, how this situation could be handled better?  Sandstein  17:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think having editors invest time in getting each other blocked and banned is good? Or would it be better if they were trying to find compromise editing agreements to settle their editing disputes? - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we admins can't do this for them. If they can't manage to work together like adults, we do have to block and ban the most disruptive of the lot.  Sandstein  17:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You think trying to remove an editing opponent, by requesting a block, is something other than disruptive? It would be different if these editors really cared about violations of sanctions. But they don't care. I have never yet seen an editor in a dispute who report someone on their own side for violating sanctions. Somehow it is only the violations of the other side that get reported. So the request and the block are, themselves, disruptive to the flow of editing, and make compromise even less likely. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate that arbitration enforcement is currently pretty much an adversarial system. But this has at least the benefit that the opposing sides police each other. It is not, as such, disruptive to report an editing opponent for disruption, even if the report is motivated by the desire to remove an opponent from the game, because the net result is still that there is less disruption in the system. I have, however, proposed at WP:WPAE a framework that could serve to mke enforcement more proactive and less reactive.  Sandstein  18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "the net result is still that there is less disruption in the system".

Au contrair. The net result is:

1. the existing editing mess
2. articles that are not informative, but attempts at propaganda, and
3. the exit of all truly neutral editors (who are quickly offended by the brutality of the existing situation), while editors on the two sides fight it out in a zero sum game that does nothing but mirror the meanness of the I/P conflict on the ground.

173.52.124.223 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is messy, but this is not really of Sandsteins making. Whatever decision he makes in trying to ensure that people respect the policies and sanctions, someone is bound to get upset, the last week or so his talk page has been full of people either pushing for sanctions or railing against the injustice of it all. In applying the sanctions in the most literal, broad sense possible he has, at least, ensured that editors realize that actions have consequence, even if unintentional. Let me ask though, 173, if Sandstein stumbled over the edit of Mbz1 by himself, do you think he would have acted differently? You yourself are more than welcome to join the discussions that are floating around, like here or here, if more people did so then perhaps we could move forward in a more cooperative fashion.Unomi (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote above is critical of the situation, but I tried to phrase this without placing blame because I understand that everyone involved intends to do good. The result, however, is not good. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

is the result not good? I would disagree. Although I agree there is much contention with partisan editors one the actual content of articles the real time wasting and disruptiveness has come from maybe 2 or 3 editors starting up incessant Arbitration Reports in order to try and get bans and blocks on editors that don't edit according to their political agenda. Mbz1 has been one of the worst offenders at this. I was the target of one of her obsessive campaigns here and I wasted an enormous amount time defending myself against it. Others were also targets. And I agree with RolandR that using terms like 'revolting' and 'snitching' is uncalled for. You could also try logging in and revealing yourself. Vexorg (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The apparent attitude of this edit is: If they do it to me it is bad, if I do it to them it is good. Of course, every editor sincerely believes that their views are good and correct. From that it follows that the views in disagreement must be wrong.

Certainly, I think I am right about the I/P conflict, and opposing views are wrong. But to resolve the issues in disagreement we need the ability to follow that up with these thoughts:

1. "Even thought I think I am right, this opposing view may be correct also."
2. "Even though it seems to me that this opposing view is wrong, what I think is correct may also be incorrect."

It seems to me that point no.2 may be even more important than no.1. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 173's comments, I personally find that the most satisfying aspect of editing wikipedia is not the idea that I can impose my pov on x amount of readers, rather it is the opportunity to learn and discuss the value proposition of presenting the information available in sources. Where all this breaks down however is if people fail to check their assumptions, fail to agf and discuss on the basis of what is actually in RS. When such a breakdown occurs there is no other recourse than to seek dispute resolution, and when there is compelling evidence that such dispute resolution will not result in meaningful, policy and RS based, debate then such players are, to put it bluntly, best sought removed. Invariably we are fallible, selection bias affects us, but I can tell you that I did notice mbz1 edit before it was mentioned here and I did find it likely to be in violation, but the sad truth is that I thought it best not to mention it lest I condemn myself to be seen to be harassing the user or making frivolous complaints. Have a look at this recent edit history, it involves 1 very short source, which could have been sought discussed on talk but has now become an editwar. Unomi (talk) 22:53, 5 April 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.

question on deleted page discussion

How long does the discussion page on a deleted page remains for all to see?--Lesbossons (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely.  Sandstein  19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Sandstein, if it is not too much of an imposition I would like to request that you monitor my edits and comment directly on any problematic behavior on my part, no matter how slight. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is too much of an imposition. I have trouble enough monitoring my own edits, let alone those of others, and so I can't do that.  Sandstein  20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what you want is a mentor. Sandstein could probably point you in the right direction to get information on that. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In truth, I am trying to ensure that the narrative which will lead to future accusations of tendentious, disruptive behavior is followed now, rather than have to be pieced together later. I also personally have a distaste for coming running to admins at every perceived slight so having a neutral party watching will save me from some of that. I don't have any objection to having a mentor, but having seen that mentors are often later accused of enabling behavior I would rather that such a person be one immune to such invalidations of opinion. Unomi (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You could always try spending more time on the talk pages. I find that bringing new people into a debate settles it one way or the other pretty quickly if one side is being unreasonable. If you can convince someone else to make the edit you want through force of argument, you won't have to take any blame later. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dog Police

Noticed you were the one who deleted the Dog Police article. I have more information on it. According to Youtube account melslifetv the song was later adapted into a television pilot staring Adam Sandler & Jeremy Piven early in their careers back in 3/30/90 also called Dog Police. That plus the original song and band which was well known and infamous, if not successful, on MTV makes me want to say reopen the article with the limited information presented and follow it up with a Stub notice, and hopefully someone with some concrete information out there can fill in the missing information. The Skunk (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dog Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog Police for lack of reliable sources. Since you do not propose such sources covering the subject in some depth, the article cannot be recreated at this time. Notably, an anonymous Youtube account is not a reliable source.  Sandstein  20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal

At first I did not care so much about topic ban (I hardly edit in on this topic anyway), but because it was enforced so vigorously here's my official appeal:

Topic Bans in General

As it explained here "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say that users subject to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy ..."

May I please ask you to provide the differences to confirm me repeatedly violate policy in the topic area of my ban?

My ban in particular

I was topic banned by you for this edit that has absolutely nothing to do with the :topic of my ban.

As you explained "As Gatoclass says, these seem to reflect a bona fide content dispute about what the sources say, and Mbz1 brings them up here in a manner that gives the impression of having the intent to associate Gatoclass with Holocaust denial, and at any rate misuses the AE process for the discussion of a content dispute, which AE is not for. This has got to stop. While the soap issue is probably outside the scope of WP:ARBPIA, it being brought up here is part of a pattern of battleground conduct by Mbz1 mostly in an ARBPIA context. To stop this, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions I am hereby topic-banning Mbz1 from all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, broadly construed and without exception for reverting vandalism or BLP violations, for three months."

My understanding is that I was topic-banned for "pattern of battleground conduct by me mostly in an ARBPIA context". May I please ask you to be more specific about "battleground conduct" by me. Gatoclass was advised as the result of AE I filed, which means that you have admitted there was at lest some merits behind the request. What other "battleground" are you talking about? This AE was the first ever I have filed. I filed only one AN/I on the editor involved in the topic. This report ended up in the editor indefinitely blocked.

A crime and a punishment

Based on the differences I provided I would not have called Gatoclass the Holocaust denier, and I am sorry, if I sounded that way, but I do believe that his opinions on some subjects are biased.

If you believe that the differences I provided is a punishable offense, may I please ask you to come up with a different kind of punishment except banning me on the topic, that has absolutely nothing to do with the "crime" itself. Why, for example not to block me, or topic ban on everything concerning the Holocaust?

If my appeal is granted, I am mostly not going to edit the topic areas anyway. I hardly did before, except two small historic articles I've started. I've never been the subject of any AE request.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the ban is not to punish you but to prevent disruption to the project. My assessment is that continued contributions by you in the I/P area would lead to continued conflict and disruption, as partially reflected in your block log, and as exemplified in your edits mentioned by Yazan in the section below. I believe that you do not edit in bad faith, but you appear to be very strongly emotionally invested in the topic at issue, and you have a tendency to melodramatically cast yourself as the victim (see, e.g., the images and poems on your talk page) instead of reflecting on whether your own conduct is appropriate. This causes you to have great difficulties interacting with others in a manner appropriate to this collaborative project. The ban, therefore, is intended to lower the stress level of both you and everyone else on the project by helping you to contribute in areas where these problems are not manifest, such as through your excellent photography. For these reasons, the appeal is declined. I will not continue any discussion. You have been given the instructions on how to appeal in another venue if you so desire.  Sandstein  18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I respect your right to stop continuing the discussion. So my message below is not for you to respond, but rather for the record. Is it only me, who sees something strange that the very same so called "violation" of my topic ban, a single and insignificant edit at the rarely viewed article was reported by three different users so far? The edit was soooo insignificant that at least two of the reporters were not even sure, if there was really a violation, yet they reported it nevertheless, and you acted on it! If it is not wikihounding, what is? The unfair topic ban you imposed on me only plays in their hands. You've done a great job in "lowering the stress level on me". I really do not know how to thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable language

Sandstein, I am contacting you here because you seem to be the most involved in the recent flare-ups in the IP area. I saw this edit summary on my watchlist, and I thought it was very inappropriate, until I saw what was before it. I can see that the user is frustrated, but it is no excuse for this behavior. I take offense as a Wikipedian, and a marxist. I am not asking for any action but to warn Mbz1, and maybe try to cool her down a bit. I was going to post this on her talkpage, but this was her response to another user who did. Best. Yazan (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bickering collapsed. Get this discussion off my talk page; it does not relate to me.  Sandstein  18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's interesting. Why do you propose a block for one but not the other? 173.52.124.223 (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I did not propose a block for either party. And all the edits were made by Mbz1 (2 edit summaries on her page, and one on Roland's page). Yazan (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Okay. Why do you find her edit summery more offensive than his? 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Which offensive edit summary of his you are referring to? Yazan (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Why do you suggest Mzb1 be "warned", but not RolandR? RolandR's edit seems to be a PA. It is well known that Mzb1 is easily baited, and RolandR's insulting edit could easily be seen as baiting, even though I am sure that was not his intent. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Mbz1 started this whole thing with this message on Roland's talk page (telling him that she needs to wash her hands everytime she visits his page), Roland, responded with the warning, which she deleted with this edit summary. Where is the baiting exactly, and where is Roland's PA? Yazan (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC) It's already on wikialerts [9] and I don't think that another complaint or another block is necessary. Let us all stop with the drama and have at least one day in a long time without admins and boards involved. Regards, --Gilisa (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) My reading of her edit is that it is not directed at RolandR, but at the cartoon by Carlos Latuff. In fact she as done some editing of Latuff's article. If she had named the man, then she would be accused of BLP. Of course, sometimes it is best to keep one's emotional reactions to oneself, but I don't see it as a PA against RolandR. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Mbz1s comments are obvious personal attacks and admin action against this user is needed: "because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick" "I wonder why when i looked at your user page I had a very strong urge to wash my hands" These comments are unacceptable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Whatever it's, it's already on the wikialerts. --Gilisa (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Even if you assumptions about Mzb1 werecorrect, and I think they are not, why do you not find RolandR's comment "unacceptable" also: "You are a racist troll, and further comments from you are unwelcome. RolandR (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC) What I see always is informers finding fault with opposing editors over edits that do not seem to offend when from supporting editors. Personally, I think RolandR should be given an editing break for that comment. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (ec)That message was to someone else entirely, I can't quite parse what that person is actually saying so I am unable to know the relative merits of it. What I saw was mbz1 stating that she felt like washing her hands after seeing his user page, I went to his userpage, noted an anti-nazi poster, noted that he was Ashkenazi and that he was against zionism, and it was the latter 2 which I thought sent her off. Regardless, my first action was to ask her to apologize, a proposition she described as garbage. I don't see why other editors have to be accommodating every time she throws a temper tantrum. Unomi (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (ec) That was not directed at Mbz1, and I only saw it now, because I don't watch RolandR's page, because I never had any contact with him (I saw the whole thing through Mbz1's edit summary). Nevertheless, I agree that it is completely unacceptable as well, and I wouldn't mind seeing him being blocked for it. This is becoming ridiculous. Yazan (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC) NB The comment of mine quoted above was not addressed to Mbz, nor to any editor involved with Israel/Palestine editing; and it is misleading to note it in this context. It was responding to an editor whose only edits have been to remove the word "fascist" from biographies of leaders of fascist groups, and to add the word "Jewish" to biographies of revolutionaries (even if they were not Jewish). When challenged on this, his response was "I think it is significant knowledge that the German revolution was lead by a small minority of the country & wiki shouldn't hide that". This is indeed an antisemitic racist editor, and I think my comment was entirely warranted. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue here. RolandR (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yazan, please stand by while I evaluate this matter.  Sandstein  18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I agree that these edits are entirely inappropriate. However, simply because I do not wish to be the single administrator to pile sanctions upon sanctions on Mbz1, I ask you to raise this in another appropriate venue, such as with another admin, the ongoing WP:WQA thread (where I will note my disapproval) or, especially if this continues, WP:ANI.  Sandstein  20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this shall suffice. It has already spiraled into more than I wanted it to anyway. I hope her topic ban will help Mbz1, see things more clearly in retrospect. I hope you had a good sweat at the gym. Best. Yazan (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent AE Discussion on I/P articles

I apologize if I was being a bit brusque. Once again, I understand why you would extend a topic ban to Mbz1 but I do not understand why a topic ban, or even a permanent ban, would not be extended to Vexorg, who is openly disseminating hate speech and promoting wild conspiracy theories, right on that actual AE discussion page. If you have any insight into that, I would appreciate it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

These are very serious accusations. Please be advised that you may be blocked without further warning if you again make such accusations against other people without at the same time providing very convincing diffs to substantiate them. Please do so now.  Sandstein  18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

'hate speech' ?? - Now that is an offensive accusation. I don't do hate speech. I think you should apologise Plot Spoiler. [ec] I would also call for a block for Plot Spoiler for that. I ma very offended Vexorg (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration warning issued. No further action required at this time. I recommend that you both disengage from each other now.  Sandstein  20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you would like me to prove you diffs or just drop it? You're pestered enough Sandstein, so if this isn't worth pursuing I understand. I also apologize for what can be perceived as inflammatory remarks given the lack of evidence presented. I forgot how sensitive these issues can be. I will provide one diff and since its unclear if this should just be dropped, I do not mean to violate the letter of your word. Not sure if its the appropriate sort of evidence but please ignore if you wish.

• In this diff [10] the user Stellarkid extensively notes Vexorg's egregious behavior. Vexorg responds with this comment [11] in which he states that espousing the idea of a Zionist Occupied Government is perfectly legitimate: "Actually no it isn't Plot Spoiler!!! I don't think ZOG is anti-Semitic. Why? Becuase Zionism does not represent all Jews. JOG would be anti-Semitic. Zionism isn't a race it's a political ideology so criticism of it cannot be racist." He says "I'm entitled to my opinions" but to me this seems extremely problematic to say the least. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed not unproblematic on the face of it, but too complicated to resolve in the margin, as it were, of an AE request or on this talk page (and therefore I ask you both not to continue discussing this incident here). If you believe immediate action is required, you may request it in the appropriate venue; otherwise, it is my intent to examine the recent I/P disruption more closely at WP:WPAE if it is kept in the current deletion debate and to determine whether action is required against the involved editors.  Sandstein  21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Take it at your pace as I'm sure you've got enough on your plate and I'm sure you are doing your best deal with this in the most balanced fashion as possible. I don't want to crowd the AE page with even more of this I/P battleground stuff. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that a] there has been no evidence of hate speech to support Plot Spoilers offensive accusations and b] I have now disengaged here as requested. Vexorg (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hi there Sandstein. Mbz1 has been reported for two very offensive messages posted at editors talk pages. It looks like a quick admin involvement would prevent those reports from escalating. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have to get to my gym now, and I will not let my schedule be dictated by this circus. I'll take a look at which, if any, problems remain outstanding when I return.  Sandstein  18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban infringement?

Collapsed as redundant to one of the above sections.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does this violate this? I'm not sure it does, as it is not about the I/P conflict as much as it about I/P issues. I leave it to your good judgement. Best NickCT (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Yeap, Sandstein, go ahead sacrifice me to my hounds yet another time, block me again for the very same topic ban "breach" that you blocked me yesterday. Why not :) I will not be surprised, you know. BTW I consider the above complain as yet another try to harass me by the same hounds of mine that never will stop to howl until you will continue to listen. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Please stop playing the victim, the sanctions you are under now have been of your own doing. Please stop trying to push peoples buttons, no matter how good you may imagine yourself at it - see WP:THERAPY. You could take some pictures, have a wikibreak or write on something unrelated, then you might find that your topic ban is over before you think. Unomi (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Hi there Nick. Already dealt with above Vexorg (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) My apologies. Must read more. NickCT (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

G-Dett

This appears to be a clear violation of G-Dett's topic ban (which includes Talk pages of articles related to I-P articles) as a result of he Samaria ArbComm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.79.68 (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New section created. Please link to the decision imposing the topic ban.  Sandstein  20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[12] Breein1007 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48h.  Sandstein  21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

These people just ain't gonna let up

Hi there Sandstein,

I can only imagine the level of your 'sigh' while reading this, but it's clear these people just are not going to let up with their disruptive meldramtic and largely substanceless reports at ANI. Here's the latest one and it's targeted against myself this time. I've left a brief comment but I really am going to avoid getting embroiled in such a ridiculous waste of time yet again. Wikipedia is quickly becoming a huge kindergarten and I want no part of this aspect of it. I just want to edit and while I realise my edits are controversial by editors of a certain political bent I cannot do anything but stick by my convictions. You are no doubt aware of the close relationship between Mbz1 and Stellarkid. I shall leave you to attend to this new report or get another admin to attend to it. I am not interested in joining yet another pissing war between two factions on Wikipedia. Thanks and you have my sympathies. Vexorg (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Latuff image

Concerning the Carlos Latuff cartoon image on RolandR's user page, it could easily be interpreted as referring to Israelis as Nazis because many Latuff cartoons do just that [13][14][15][16][17]

The caption included with the image on RolandR's talk page, is not part of the image as Latuff created it. The caption was added by someone else. The link with the caption in no way supports the quote[18]

It seems possible that the Latuff cartoon, combined with the quote, was included in a way so that users on the P side of the I/P disputes would understand that the "Nazis" referred to are Israeli Jews, while all others would understand it as a repudiation on Nazi-like hate speech against Jews. I think it is almost certain that Latoff, when he created this cartoon, intended it to depict Israelis as modern day Nazis. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, whatever the merits of the cartoonist or his other images, the image as currently displayed is not sufficiently divisive to warrant arbitral sanctions. I understand it as referring to actual Nazis (why else would the figure hold a Palestinian flag?). By the way, have you ever contributed with a user account?  Sandstein  16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon is clearly and explicitly anti-Nazi. It does not purport to portray Israelis, but to denounce antisemites hiding behind a Palestinian flag. The text was indeed written by Latuff to accompany this cartoon; see his post Nazis for Palestine? NO WAY! at Bay Area Indymedia. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal notification

I have appealed against your prohibition of my use of certain images. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Claim that you have agreed to unblock

New York City Public Schools, 165.155.192.81 (talk · contribs), three weeks from the end of a year's schoolblock, claim that you have agreed they should be unblocked. Is that true? They were actually blocked by PhilKnight. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what this IP is talking about. I don't remember interacting with it. Sorry.  Sandstein  19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unblock declined. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Random acts of kindness

Unomi (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Also, you are very welcome to join and watchlist WP:IPCOLL. Unomi (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Falafel are delicious...  Sandstein  20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Policing user pages

Hey Sand,

Just want to register with you that I think policing user pages is a waste of your time and energy. I've notice this is second time in recent history you've objected to and tried to eliminate content on user pages.

I think Mbz correctly identified the relevant policies as being WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:UPNO in Roland's case. I wonder though if WP:NOTSOAPBOX was originally intended for user pages, and I'd point out that WP:UPNO could be used to object to any number of items on users pages. I don't think any really clear policy existed for this sanction. I would make two points to you -

1)Policing user pages (which have a de facto private nature to them) is dictatorial.

2)Policing user pages rarely acts to significantly improve wikipedia. Normal WP users never see em, and editors only see them if they choose to look.

For the record, I don't think Roland's image was particularly helpful. Best, NickCT (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right; I wouldn't have intervented but for the conflict over another user's remark concerning that user page. However, discretionary sanctions are always dictatorial in the sense that they do not require anybody's consent.  Sandstein  20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more the user-page aspect than unilateral nature of the discretionary sactions that irks me. Discretionary sactions when applied correctly, are not necessarily dictatorial.

Anyways, your acknowledgement of the potential morale ambiguity here is evidence of your ability for fair assessment. Good day to you, NickCT (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

NUTRITION

Mr.Sand I have found over the years that Wikipedia is literally loaded with misinformation. Recently I have found an article on Nutrition which I was hopefully going to use as a citation for something else. In reading only the first 1/4 of this nonsense I felt compelled to make note within the article that it if full of typos, gibberish, misinformation, and at some points unmitigated ignorance. I was immediately chided by yourself to make my comments in the “TALK” section which almost nobody reads. This does not cure the problem. Innocent minds may use the misinformation presented and load it into their mental computers. Your deletion of my correction demonstrates your compliance in this educational misconduct. Please either notify the author to modify this article so that it no longer contains informational errors or remove it until someone takes the time to actually edit the article for content rather than merely grammar. The last straw was that WATER could be DILUTED by fiber.

Please make it your mission to assist those seeking enlightenment rather than acting like a police officer handing out a minor infraction ticket. Your effort to perpetuate such nonsense questions your presence. Thanks for listening Hogwash eliminator (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force

The current artikel is tottal incompliet Air Bases and Aircraft are missing , there are also much wrong informations (for exampel Berne is a civil Airport, the F-5E are still every weekday in use as fighteraircrafts). Sorry but the newspaper FACTS as reliable sources is just a bad jocke. Have Look at the German and the Italian version, Thes Versions have the full qualety for wikipedia. I knew my engilsh is not well, but with this wrong informations in the Articel i cant say nothing. My Informations are the Truht because i work sinc 1996 for the Swiss Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot (talk • contribs) 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll reply on your talk page.  Sandstein  09:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you handle this (I'm going to sleep), he's resorted to going back to IP socking on Dassault Mirage III. Unfortunately it looks as though a block is the only option. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Blocked.  Sandstein  11:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation?

The following [19] was added to User:Factomancer's page today.

It links to[20] in which she argues that User:Mbz1 should be blocked.

In my opinion it is a violation of her interaction ban. I bring it to your attention here. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply rearranged that page, I did not add that link. That link has existed on that page for a long time, since long before the interaction ban came into effect. Here you can see that the 19th March version of that page had that very same link which has not been altered since then. I can remove that link if it is deemed a violation, but Stellarkid is simply lying when he claims I added it recently. Factomancer (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To avoid tiresome debates, how about you just remove it?  Sandstein  17:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User interaction bans?

Hi Sandstein. I don't know anything about user interaction bans, but seem to remember you imposing a few. Mbz1 left me a message asking if I could propose an interaction ban between herself and Vexorg. I have no idea how or where to make such a proposal. Can you help? ← George ^talk 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a ban could probably be implemented as a discretionary sanction; the place to request such a sanction would be WP:AE. Regards,  Sandstein  16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I've made the request here. Cheers. ← George ^talk 09:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid's user page

No action taken. If you feel the need to continue to discuss this among yourselves, which I strongly suggest you don't, please do so elsewhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stellarkid's user page contains two quotes that accuse anti-Zionists of being latent antisemites. These quotes "vilify, reject, deny the legitimacy or right to existence of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" by labeling all those who oppose Israel as racist bigots. In 1975, well-known literary scholar and dedicated leftist Hans Mayer wrote, “Whoever attacks Zionism, but by no means wishes to say anything against the Jews, is fooling himself and others. The State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to destroy it, openly or through policies that can effect nothing else but such destruction, is practicing the Jew hatred of yesterday and time immemorial.” Jean Améry criticized the elitist anti-Zionism of the Left as being nothing more than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. In a speech in 1969, Améry stated, “Anti-Semitism was once the socialism of the stupid guys. Today it is about to become an integrating ingredient of socialism as such, and thereby every socialist turns himself, by his free will, into a stupid guy. Anti-Semitism has become respectable again, but there is no such thing as respectable anti-Semitism!” Factomancer (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Hm, have you asked the editor to remove this content? Politely?  Sandstein  14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Denying Jews the same right of self-determination as any other nationality (say, Australians) is anti-Semitism. There is nothing wrong with the quote, and if Stellarkid wishes to have it on his page, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that should prevent it. As for the claim that the quotes vilify one side of the I-P conflict, you are demonstrating the epitome of the problem, Factomancer. You are trying to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an Israeli-ANTI Israel conflict. There is no vilification of Palestinians in those paragraphs, and anyone engaging in "opposing Israel" on Wikipedia the way you put it is completely out of line, the same way it would be for someone to "oppose Australia". Breein1007 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Bree - If you take a look at this AE there was a long discussion about the appropriateness of potentially inflammatory comments on user pages. Mbz1 brought up WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UPNO as being the relevant policies. Frankly, as I mentioned below, I think policing user pages is always dubious except in cases of REALLY blatant violations. This kind of shinanigans will only lead to pointless arbitration that does nothing for the quality of WP. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I respectfully disagree. It will help clarify Wikipedia policy and in the end should help to make WP better. I have responded on my talk page to this accusation, and whoever would like to check it out is welcome to. To suggest that anti-Zionism in the abstract is equivalent to anti-semitism says nothing about the Palestinians' right to self determination or their legitimacy, but very much about Israel's right to self-determination and legitimacy. Stellarkid (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) (ec) Factomancer, I sympathize with your position and this does seem like the type of shinanigans RolandR got spanked for, but I'd discourage tit-for-tat arbitration of this nature. Policing user pages is in very bad taste, and just because Sandy was encouraged to police Roland's page doesn't mean you should encourage him to police Stellar's page. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I have now. I will let you know how it goes. Factomancer (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I asked Stellarkid, and he refused. The ball is in your court now. Factomancer (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Everybody, stop the bickering. I won't take arbitration enforcement action on account of this quote alone. While it is true that divisive political content, especially related to the I-P conflict, is in principle unwelcome on user pages per general policy and WP:ARBPIA, this long and rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag. Nonetheless, displaying lengthy political opinions on one's user page is a pretty strong signal to me that the user in question is here primarily to push a particular point of view, and this may count strongly against them in the event that an administrator must decide whether to sanction them for actual misconduct. (But then, so does this sort of sniping at each other. Get back to work on articles, please.)  Sandstein  17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I still think that Sandstein was wrong to order the removal of the image from my page; so of course I think he would be wrong to order the removal of this text from Stellarkid's page. It would be hypocritical of me to call for its removal, yet argue for the reinstatement of the image on my page. I make no comment about those who call for the removal of the image from my page, but oppose removal of the text from Stellarkid's page. I also, of course, disagree with the content of these quotes. But I have no intention of turning the page into a battlefield, by raising my political arguments there. Equally, I hope that those who oppose any of the content on my page will restrain themselves, and not waste everyone's time and energy by starting sterile debates there. We all know that we are never going to agree on these principles and interpretations; but, with a lot of hard work, we may just be able to agree/compromise on the content of Wikipedia articles. RolandR (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC) "I think he would be wrong to order the removal of this text from Stellarkid's page. It would be hypocritical of me to call for its removal, " - Strongly agree "rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag" - I don't know. I find the suggestion that someone who is against Zionism is necessarily an antisemite a little offensive. What would you say to one who posted a rather long and dry statement by "intellectuals" saying that Zionists are necessarily racist? SandS - While I'm glad you're not drawing out the arbitration, you've worked yourself into a double standard here. The right thing to do would be to let RR have his flag, or at least say it would be OK to have the flag (hopefully RR would rise above, and choose not to repost it).... NickCT (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Would just like to remind everyone that Sandstein did not require RolandR to remove his support for "anti-Zionist" on this web page, just the picture of the crossed-out Israeli flag as against Wikipedia policy. As long as RolandR and others can be considered "anti-Zionist" there is no reason why I cannot be considered "anti-anti-Zionist" without violating any policy. Nowhere do I have a crossed-out Palestinian flag on my userpage, not would I ever have one. Anti-zionists would preclude the existence of Israel, but Zionists do not preclude the existence of any other people. "Zionists" accepted Resolution 181 that would have created an Arab (Palestinian) homeland. Palestinian Arabs on the other hand, did not. The Arabs wanted everything for themselves, and such that Jews were not allowed to worship in the holy places that were controlled by Jordan. I do not consider those quotes to be divisive but educational. There are numerous RS that say exactly the same thing including the EUMC working definition of antisemitism as noted on my page. There is no parallel with the material on RolandR's page. In my opinion this discussion is clearly a matter of testing this administrator to see if he will put out a tit-for-tat ruling. However the analogy is incorrect and the rationale used for banning the image from RolandR's page is not the same at all. Stellarkid (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) "crossed-out Israeli flag as against Wikipedia policy" Nice rant Stellar. Look, the bottom line is that if you are going to pursue people for material you deem to be offensive on thier userpage, be prepared to have it done to you. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force

Hallo Ich habe jetzt meine ergänzungen der beiden Englischen Versionen der MirageIII und der Swiss Air Force auf den diskusionsseiten eingetragen. Leider ist es auf der Orginalseite Swiss air Force recht viel fehelend oder gar falsch so das das nicht mit ein paar Zahlen oder kleinen Ergänzungen korrigiert ist. Ich hoffe sehr das sich dem jemand mit guten englischkentnissen annimmt.

Sehr schade finde es ich auch das vom Artikel Flugzeugkaverne keine Englische Version existiert. Meine englischkentnisse sind leider nicht genügen um da eine Englische version zu machen, ausserdem ist es sehr schwer Quellennachweise zu machen da über dies anlagen nur wenige Dokumente öffentlich sind. Vieleicht könnte man jemanden mit dem Sprachlichen können dazu motivieren ? Gruss Swiss testpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[21]--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Being harassed

Hi Sandstein. I am not sure what to do about this editor who is harassing me now. Please check out his contributions --there are only a handful and totally directed at me. Also please check out the edit summaries on my talk page. Would appreciate your help with this one. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Which editor?  Sandstein  17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Urbane23 -- who is also the anon ip User:81.111.91.170 Stellarkid (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Malik Shabazz, who is also an administrator, is following the matter.  Sandstein  21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must be druuunk to have forgotten to give you his name!  ;) Stellarkid (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

suggested edit to AE edit notice

I think the edit notice should include instructions for both the enforcement request template and the enforcement appeal template. I did this here, but the actual edit notice is fully protected. nableezy - 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, what's the edit notice page again?  Sandstein  18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it...  Sandstein  18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, thanks for the proposal.  Sandstein  18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment solicited

Is this edit problematic? Unomi (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! It was up for less than a minute before he struck it! Give it a rest! Stellarkid (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Now it reads "totally and completely antisemitic ... completely legally daft and biased", which is not much better. I agree that a WP:BLP warning is warranted.  Sandstein  05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

oops. missed the daft part. Stellarkid (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Is the impending carnage avoidable?     ←   ZScarpia   18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy question

I guess you will delete my message, as you've done last two times, but I do not know who else I may ask, so here it is. May I please ask you, if it is a proper thing to do to try to convince the editors, who had something good to say about me at my appeal to change their comments as it was done in those edits[22]; [23];[24];[25];[26];[27]? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather not comment on matters related to the management of your appeal against my sanction. Such questions should be directed to another administrator.  Sandstein  18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not appeal against your sanctions. I appeal to lift my sanctions. I was absolutely fine with your sanctions until my last block. That block hurt me a lot... My edit summary was silly, but it was just a joke... Anyway... I would not like you to find yourself in any trouble because of my appeal. If you'd like me to, I will withdraw it at once. As I said many times before I am not going to edit in the area of conflict no matter what, but now I am afraid to get trapped as I was two times already because of my "broadly constructed" topic ban. Still, if you'd like me to I will withdraw my appeal, and if I am trapped (blocked) again, that will be fine too. Wikipedia will be doing just fine without me I guess. So, it is up to you know. Withdraw?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, whether you want to withdraw your appeal is up to you. Whether you do so or not, as far as I am concerned, the ban remains necessary to protect Wikipedia from disruption and is maintained until such time as it expires or is lifted or modified by competent authority.  Sandstein  18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You weren't trapped, you decided to jump into a WP:ARBPIA AE appeal request regarding a user you had previously had conflicts with in I/P, in your ES you even whimsically wonder if doing this is in contravention of your topic ban.

To address your concern regarding my taking contact with the editors you mention above:

I asked if they understood that you were currently not restricted from any other aspect of wikipedia than what is Israel-Arab related, as their comments struck me as appearing to stem from a misunderstanding in that regard.

I further asked Lar+ if he would consider mentoring you as both he and cordelia seemed to be interested in finding alternate solutions, I was trying to help you.

When George seemed to question the grounds for the current topic ban I referred him to Sandstein and offered my understanding of it and I voiced my concern that you are likely to be met with even harsher sanctions if you are offered, and fail to abide by, alternate restrictions. I value your contributions to wikipedia, I think that it would be a shame to lose you as an asset to those areas where you are able to work constructively within policy. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what will happen if your current sanctions are lifted without strong guidance from a responsible mentor. Unomi (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I suggest that you stop trying to WP:BAIT Mbz1. This advice is for your own good; believe me on that one. Breein1007 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that this advice is intended in bad faith or to bait anybody. Nonetheless, if you two want to communicate with anybody who is not me, please do so in some other forum.  Sandstein  18:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ban

Why did you ban me without first telling me to remove this? I think this ban is really strange and I'm asking you to reconsider. I think there was a dispute whether it's WP:BLP. I didn't see it that way, and you could have explained to me as a moderator. I would gladly have removed it. I was never given a chance or a warning by a moderator. 3RR and the sockpupptery (which I deny! it was a mistake!) are long time ago. I'm not a very active user, I don't know if I would have made more edits or not, but I contributed to a lot of articles and I'm afraid people will delete my contributions. They have done so on a consistent basis from time to time. Please I'll gladly accept a restriction so that I won't engage in war editing which sometimes happens, but change the ban to something more reasonable... I don't really want my work to get ruined, and I also don't know what the ban includes - how wide is this scope? 99% of my edit history had to do with history and with Israel - what does it mean Arab Israeli conflict. I don't think it should have been done this way - it looks artbitrary and harsh. Thanks. Amoruso (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people told you to remove it, and you even reverted them to reinsert the violation. Administrators are not "moderators" and have no authority to order others around, though they do have authority to restrict disruptive users. As explained on BLPN, you blew the last chance you were given after the socking, which (given that the block was never lifted) I have no reason to assume that you did not do.  Sandstein  20:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that, but the determintion was "likely". I tried to appeal it but to no avail. I just hope you accept that likely is not "certain" and the checkuser guy realized that it may be wrong, they did it anyway. that was some time ago. the user that reverted me was someone who was rv'ing me on pages, and even wikistalking me. I just reported him, user:Unomi, so it was heated debate. If it was WP:BLP then I admit being wrong, and would have removed it. You just had to ask me - I've just been asked by a adminstrator that on my talk page, and then you weighed in - I think the first adminstrator asked me to notch it down and I would have - so he was already taking care of it! [28] 20 minutes later you banned me without giving me a chance to comply with the first adminstrator who addressed me on that topic on my talk page. Can you please reconsider - this is really harsh and automatic... Amoruso (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Sandstein, I strongly suggest you revoke your decision about Amoruso. I don't know Amoruso, but I do know Nableezy, and I do know that he brought en-wp to one of its lowest points ever. We are witnessing an ongoing political campaign led by Nableezy, Harlan Wilkerson, Tiamut and several other users. They have turned some of the articles in WP into a sad joke, and they constantly intimidate other users. Please, if you don't want to be part of this trend that the Wikipedia project further down to its end, don't cooperate with them. I have no intention to sound melodramatic, I am quite convinced things cannot go any worse, and (at least in this case) Amoruso is not the guy you were looking for. DrorK (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Ynhockey: The sanction is puzzling to me as well, and appears ill-advised for the following reasons: Amoruso is a prolific contributor to Israel-related topics, therefore the ban is extremely counter-productive Amoruso has apologized and acknowledged the BLP violation If you look at the article, in fact the editor who filed the complaint was the one who edit-warred and violated other policies, therefore by banning Amoruso who user the talk page to discuss the issues per policy and was not aware that he was violating BLP, you are in fact encouraging bad conduct from other editors, who now know they can get away with edit-warring, personal attacks, soapboxing, etc... just not BLP violations. The other evidence brought up by you in the case (like sock puppetry, etc.) is irrelevant seeing as how the issue was dealt with and Amoruso stopped using sock puppets. In other words, treating BLP as a sacred cow and banning anyone who remotely touches it, while letting other editors get away with just about anything with only "strong warnings" and the like (speaking of which, you might want to look at the Vexorg case because you gave him a strong warning and on the same day he started violating policies again), is not going to help improve Wikipedia, in my honest opinion. I request that you review and lift the ban, and give Amoruso a chance to make productive contributions to Wikipedia, something that he was not given with the swift and sweeping sanction which now effectively prevents him from editing. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by ZScarpia: I would agree that the ban would be excessive if it was just for a BLP violation, but the impression that I have is that it is for behavioural problems generally. Nobody would argue that "Amoruso is a prolific contributor" (albeit he has only just started to edit again after a longish break), but whether those contributions are neutral and well written would be a different matter. To me it is clear that he has great difficulty dealing with points of view other than his own and the editors expressing them.     ←   ZScarpia   12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I did create many articles and added a lot of well written material. I was also involved in very heated debates with several users in the past but I'm trying to get past that. user:nableezy has title=Talk:Israel&diff=354996488&oldid=354996124 accused me of lying without justification (later he sort of apologized when he acknowledged that he was wrong) which started this heated environment. Give me a chance by not making a topic ban over this mistake. Amoruso (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC) It would be useful if you or Ynhockey could provide us with a list of your contributions so we can assess the value, quality and neutrality for ourselves. Factomancer (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Unless Amoruso would like to list contributions that he's particularly proud of or asks editors to justify their criticisms of him, I think that it would be better not to start heading down the road of holding up specific ones for comment. A list of Amoruso's contributions can, of course be found here and statistics on contributions here.     ←   ZScarpia   15:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Well, if Amoruso is as prolific and valuable a contributor as Ynhockey claims then it shouldn't be hard to find examples of articles he has substantially improved. Wading through a raw contribution list is not practical and the stats don't really tell you anything useful except when identifying sockpuppets. Anyway the point is that its beholden upon the person making the claim to provide proof. Factomancer (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Appeal to revoke decision based on having a WP:RS for admittedly-misplaced WP:BLP issue I sincerely apologize again for saying what I did. What I wrote was over the top, as I felt user:Nableezy and user:unomi were relentless with trying to taint Israeli articles with the term "occupied" - they were saying this is the universal truth by an "objective" ICJ, and this what brought the bad exaggeration. It is not my habit to exaggerate when dealing with someone termed as "X" by "source name". I feel a little that Nableezy was being protective of calling someone for that behavior, which is a bit of a serious issue on its own when Nableezy knows who that person is and that's he's under a lot of criticism for an alleged extreme anti Israeli decision and for being on the panel for alleged bias (all supported by WP:RS). But I went to check my sources about the ICJ decision and I found the actual source. The source is referenced in scholarly works. It's referenced in Florida Law Review 57 Fla. L. Rev. 717, MENDING THE "FENCE": HOW TREATMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE HAGUE HAS REDEFINED THE DOCTRINE OF SELF- DEFENSE, page 13. The source is: "The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2004, at 20. The Jerusalem Post in an WP:RS. It talks about the case and says.. "'Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." No relevance. I see the words, but even knowing that the International Court of Justice would rule against Israel, I cannot fully believe they were written. With these words, the ICJ decision joins the parade of anti-Semitic infamy, along with such milestones as the Dreyfus trial...". This would all have been fleshed out if the discussion continued for more than the few hours it did. It would have been wrong and it won't continue now, but it's an RS for BLP purposes. I still won't reintroduce it, in fact I REMOVED every reference to the word, but having an WP:RS takes it out of WP:BLP sanction. I again apologize and will not edit that specific article again, and will edit more calmly without edit-warring, but I think this shows that it wasn't capricious and that it was based on WP:RS. This is not the only Israeli sources about the court's opinion to this regard, but it's an WP:RS that I was familiar with, and it stuck with me. It does not condone saying that, because I realize it's not helpful and I should have controlled that, but it's still an WP:RS so it shouldn't be dealt this way IMHO. Kind regards, Amoruso (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Ugh, that wasn't an article it was an op-ed by Saul Singer who went on to write in that very letter: “ The reason is that the objective of the fence had to be not just defending Israelis, but imposing a territorial price for the almost four years of unprovoked aggression the Palestinians have unleashed against us. Roughly speaking and as harsh as it may sound to say it, the more Palestinians feel that the fence is a "land grab," the more we are doing the right thing. This is particularly true in the context of a disengagement plan which, we must admit, is susceptible to portrayal as a withdrawal under fire. The fence, and particularly where it is built, are the key antidotes to the sense that the disengagement plan is a net Palestinian victory. ” — [29] Which can no longer even be found on the jpost website. At best it is an RS for Saul Singers opinion. You were told by me, Nableezy and atleast 2 uninvolved editors that you were in the wrong, yet you kept arguing with them, claiming everything from free speech to how libel laws are interpreted rather than just backing up and reading the policies, which you refused to do. Unomi (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Unomi, why is it so important for you to ban me? Your edit history is quite strange. I wasn't told by uninvolved editors anything in the talk page itself. I accepted that I was wrong. How is this not an RS? Saul Singer is an editorial page editor at the Jerusalem post and co-author of Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, critically acclaimed book. He's an RS. And yes it's on the website. It is an RS that an accusation of antisemitism was brought by and so it doesn't fall into WP:BLP violation - I would have explained it all. I regret even going there but you can't say it's not an RS just to make sure that I'm banned. I think that you Unomi have a lot of explaining to do about your history of editing and that you shouldn't be involved. Amoruso (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I don't have to do anything to make sure that you are banned, nor do I particularly care if you are, as long as you discuss in a reasoned manner. When I used the jpost search mechanism I could not find it, thank you for the link but I am unable to access it. Do you agree that it is an OpEd? He is absolutely not an RS for stating as fact that the ICJ is antisemitic, that is absurd. You made no effort to explain or substantiate any of it, you simply rewrote it so that it read as your opinion along with stating that since it was phrased in this way it wouldn't fall afoul of libel laws. You continue misread the letter and dishonor the spirit of WP:BLP even now. Do you fully realize that what you are accusing them of is illegal in many countries? Unomi (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Unomi, calm down. It's not illegal anywhere. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I know I made a mistake, but you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I never said "for stating as fact that the ICJ is antisemitic" - I would never say that. Obviously it's always a matter of opinion - it can never be a fact. I was saying or trying to say that there are opinions that it is, and these opinions are sourced. These opinions are published and are RS. & I accept that there was no place for it, but the RS mitigates the BLP indiscretion. Jerusalem Post in an WP:RS and the article is referenced in Florida Law Review. Now answer me Unomi, are you only one person using your account? Amoruso (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, Amoruso I am the only one using this account. I need to get some work done, but here you proclaim that the decision by the ICJ was largely antisemitic. Unomi (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) So you're now saying that a comment about an institution (supported by WP:RS) is WP:BLP. ... How can you edit for 24HRS straight? That's not the work of a single person. I think you should take time off and we shouldn't be discussing this on this talk page. Amoruso (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) That was the only thing that you had close to a source for, unlike, I presume this. Yes, sometimes I edit for 48 hours straight, sometimes I don't sleep for 4 days at a time, thank you for your concern. I agree that this is misuse of Sandsteins talkpage. Unomi (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I think that this illustrates the problem well. Source reliability works on a number of different levels. The Jerusalem Post itself, as a quality newspaper, has a general acceptance as a reliable source. Whether individual articles themselves are accepted as reliable sources (which is one of the issues decided by consensus) also depends on factors such as who the authors are. A Google search shows that Saul Singer is a writer and journalist with pretty hardline, non-neutrally expressed, views. That Amoruso expects other editors to accept him as a reliable source (meaning that his comments should be regarded as verification that statements are factual), particularly when he is writing in an article titled The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, speaks quite loudly. We are expected to give credit to the article because it is referred to by one in the Florida Law Review. That would be justifiable if the author was being used as a sound source of legal opinion. But he is not. (Apologies to Sandstein for cluttering his page up.)     ←   ZScarpia   16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am collapsing the discussion above because Amoruso has also made an appeal at WP:AE. So as not to duplicate the discussion I will respond there to the salient points raised here.  Sandstein  16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arb appeal by Mbz1

[30] It appears that User:Vexorg and User:Beyond My Ken are weighing in as "uninvolved" editors. There is no way that Vexorg can be considered uninvolved and Beyond My Ken has weighed in at the noticeboard for Vexorg [31] making his position of support for Vexorg very clear. (Looks like Vexorg will be scrolling off the page and will get away scott-free this time as well, oh well) Stellarkid (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As the administrator whose action is under review in that appeal, it's not really my place to make a determination about who is involved and who isn't; that's up to the admin who'll close the appeal. But you may certainly make note of your concerns about these users' involvement in the AE thread.  Sandstein  21:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This appeal has been closed. Per this there was a suggestion of further discussion around a possible mentorship, if it would help. Mbz1 also contacted me privately and urged me to ping you. What are your thoughts? I'll watch here or we can do this on my page or wherever you like. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I feel that I have spent entirely too much time on this issue already, and per WP:THERAPY I would prefer not to spend any more.  Sandstein  18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. Thanks for considering matters anyway. Best. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly what I am asking for, I mean to save your time. Please lift my ban, let Lar be my mentor, as closing administrator has suggested. It will safe you time. There will be no more reports about me at your talk page. You will not loose time blocking me, and responding my questions about block rationales. Please, Sandstein, I will not let down neither Lar nor you. I will not edit in the area in conflict. I will behave as the ban is still in effect. I simply will feel myself a little bit better, and more sure, if it is lifted. Please believe me!--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your silence means that it is not about your time. It means that you do not like me personally, and would not like to let me off the tight rope of way too "broadly constructed" topic ban, or maybe you like me and would not like to have me off your sight :) Whatever... I'd like to thank you for "advising" Gatoclass. Very few administrators here would have been fair enough and most important brave enough to do it. I would also like to thank you for your involvement in another matter that I cannot mention without violating of my ban, but you know what I am talking about, and now the barnstar for you

I have removed your award. Do not use barnstars for pursuing disputes with others and please find something else to do.  Sandstein  21:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Factson the ground and Mbz1

Hi there. I noticed to interaction-blocked FOTG for breaking the ban. Mbz1 has just messaged me asking if this constitutes a break. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave to catch a plane so I was wondering if you could take a look in the interim. Sorry! SGGH ^ping! 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As I explained to Stellarkid that link has been on that page since long before the interaction ban was passed. I recently merely rearranged the page and added other links. If the link is considered a contravention of the interaction ban I will remove it immediately. Otherwise, I would prefer not to.

Also this is one more in a number of spurious interaction ban requests made against me. At what point does the "Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." clause come into effect?Factomancer (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that section so you all can stop the drama now. Factomancer (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring for Mbz1

Hi Sandstein! It has come to my attention that an uninvolved administrator has agreed with a recommendation of formal mentoring for Mbz1 in place of any block/topic ban. I hereby offer to mentor Mbz1 and ask that, provided she agrees, you withdraw the sanctions in question. Alternatively, Lar has agreed to mentor Mbz1, but he also said that he might not be available during problematic times. In any case, we can probably work something out, and even bring another person in. I will also use this opportunity to reiterate that I strongly believe that any kind of long-term sanction for an editor who has a history of positive contributions to Wikipedia is counter-productive, before other measures have been tried, including mentoring. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,Ynhockey.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, but in my opinion a mentorship arrangement is not sufficient to effectively prevent continued disruption by Mbz1. You are welcome to try mentoring her, but the ban will remain in place for the reasons given in the appeal discussion.  Sandstein  10:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. It is my understanding that you have a difficult time coming up with some differences to prove your point of "continued disruption" by me. No worries I have decided to help you out. I just added a song to my talk page. This song is a violation of my topic ban. So, my next block is going to be a week, isn't it?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is worrisome is not my own topic ban, but rather your unwillingness to look at vexorg even after few users brought it to your attention. I assure you that message has nothing to do with my personal dispute with vexorg (there's nothing for me to dispute with that one).It is rather about vexorg's dispute with common scene.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Hi Sandstein, I just wanted to let you know that Gilabrand is editing I/P topics again in contravention of her topic ban.

• Removed a section that includes material about the film Munich which is about the Mossad assassinating Palestinian militants - [32]. The removed section explicitly mentions "Black Tuesday"/the Munich massacre which is definitely a subject in the scope of the I-P topic.
• Edited an article entitled "Religious Zionism" -[33] [34]. Zionism is a major part of the I-P conflict. The criticism section in particular contains lots of material about the I-P conflict ([35])
• Added a link to an Israeli pundit talking about Gaza - [36]
• Added material about a person's daughter being killed by Jordanian shelling during the 1948 war; which is a major part of the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestinian conflicts. [37]
• Added links to "Notable religious Zionist figures" on the Religious Zionism page ([38]) which includes a link to the biography of She'ar Yashuv Cohen that contains a large section about his views on Israel's disengagement plan from Gaza.
• Changed the title of a section that includes material about the partition plan, a major point of contention in the i-P conflict - "The area of Eilat was designated as part of the Jewish state in the 1947 UN Partition Plan" - [39] Factomancer (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that this talk page does not turn into a substitute for WP:AE. Therefore please make your request in that forum.  Sandstein  14:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Report by Factomancer

Factomancer is harassing and stalking me, and lying to boot. This is getting ridiculous. I have had no dealings with her for weeks now. When is this person going to stop the savage campaign against other editors on Wikipedia. She is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I did not remove any sections about the Munich film, I did not add any material about somebody's daughter being killed and I am entitled to write anything I want on Zionism pages where no conflict is mentioned. Her accusations are false. Her attempts to scare away other editors, insistence that pages belong to her and incivility toward everyone, including a whole host of administrators, is serious cause for concern. When is this behavior going to end??? Doesn't anyone see what is happening here. Is everyone blind???--Geewhiz (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your signature impedes communication; please bring it into conformity with WP:SIG: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive."  Sandstein  15:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Silverhorse

He's still doing the weird date formatting thing in contravention of your earlier block. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy: how limited?

Hello. Can I ask what duration you had in mind for Nableezy's "limited" topic ban? As an aside, I agree regarding Shuki and AE complaints/reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Something on the order of a few months; I'm open to suggestions. The last topic ban was 4 months, later reduced to 2.  Sandstein  22:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If possible I would like to suggest that should such a topic ban take place that it is limited to article content and that he remains free to take part in talkpage discussions. Unomi (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The last topic ban was also manifestly excessive in my view, even after the reduction. It should have been no more than a month, and the admin who imposed it no longer participates at AE after taking a number of controversial decisions.

Nableezy is also one of the few editors on IP conflict pages who draws support from both sides of the political divide, we should be doing everything we can to encourage such editors, not discouraging them, and I hope therefore given the relatively minor infringements here that any sanction thus applied will take account of these factors. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, Constance Demby here...

Hi Sandstein... Constance Demby here... and it's been some time since we had a discussion... We last talked in Dec 09, and then I got really busy with career concerns. I had sent new information for my page, and there were items that needed to be edited, changed, etc, and I finally now have time to devote to my Wiki page and make it the way it's supposed to be! which honestly, I did not understand nor was I aware of the Wiki rules when I first started posting to my page ... and is why all that trouble and bad reviews on the talk page occured. no one had told me how Wikipedia works... Now I know, and now I have a new producer who want to promote me, and I need to fix my page the way it should be according to Wiki standards and guidelines. But now I cant find the page where the new bio was entered, and where there were several comments from you

so to sum up... I need to get my wiki page edited and up to standard, and I would appreciate your counsel and direction as to where I find the page where I entered all my info in Dec of 2009... thanks so much for your help and guidance, much appreciated!

and I just found this: when I tried to go to <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constance_Demby&diff=prev&oldid=329772242>

Wikimedia Foundation Error العربيOur servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

thanks for you help Sandstein, much appreciated Constance66.215.99.9 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

hi again and this is the page that I was looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constance_Demby&diff=next&oldid=329772242 it just came up. now,I need to understand the guidelines on the two sides of the page and how to re-edit and re-submit the material.

thanks .... Constance Demby66.215.99.9 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The link you mention above seems to work fine from here, I would suggest that the best way forward would be to suggest changes to the talk page and invite input from other editors, please review WP:COI and WP:BIOSELF. Kind Regards, Unomi (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Good news you have something to block me for again Factomancer (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unequal implementation of a supposedly bilateral interaction ban. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

== Truly pathetic ==

You can take any criticism without threatening me with a "community" ban. I've contributed numerous quality articles to Wikipedia - more than you have recently. Shows how little you care about the encyclopedia and how this is just an exercise in imposing your authority for your own gratification. I've removed my ANI report so you can't get the satisfaction of banning me. Factomancer (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on, explain yourself. You said that you thought I needed a community ban. Well, make your case. I'm listening. Factomancer (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction Ban... not working

I'm not waiting 8 hours, sorry. I don't know if that even applies to everyone or just to the editors under the ban, but I don't really care to be honest... this is out of hand. It's absolutely ridiculous what I-P is turning into on Wikipedia and it is largely a result of this interaction ban which is broken on a nearly daily basis. It is pitting the two "sides" against each other and it has gotten worse than I have ever seen it. The interaction ban is not working; therefore, I hope that you will do something else that can help this situation before it completely falls apart. Here are the newest violations of the interaction ban:

• I know you are already aware of the post that was made at AN/I. It had a direct mention of Mbz1 by Factomancer through diffs. It was not a complaint about an interaction ban violation on Mbz1's part, so there was no reason for Factomancer to be mentioning Mbz1. You responded at that AN/I and didn't do anything about it, so I guess you didn't consider it a violation for some reason. Maybe because she attempted to strike out and delete the request after the fact? Although personally that makes it worse in my eyes, but clearly I'm not the admin.
• Anyway, past AN/I, she put the same violation on her user page here [40]. It is also a clear violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Soon after, she also removed this information, replacing the content with this [41] stating that she is going on a long break. She has done this before when she has gotten herself into big trouble, only to change her mind after a couple of days and come back. As we can see, her temporary break in that case didn't change her behaviour, as here we are once again.
• I'm truly tired of dealing with this crap. Last year we actually had some sort of collaboration going on in I-P on Wikipedia, before we had to deal with issues like this (to this severity, at least). A combination of a few "new" users coming into the I-P struggle relatively recently have turned it into a real warzone between the two sides, and I don't like it. I don't think other people like it either. It is having an EXTREMELY detrimental effect on the encyclopedia in the I-P area, because not only is so much of our time wasted fighting and defending each other in constant AE and AN/I reports, or sitting out short bans for minor infractions, but even aside from that, it just isn't rewarding or feasible to try to contribute and collaborate anymore. There is no longer an expectation that posting something constructive on a talk page will lead to discussion from people who disagree. There is no point of making significant edits to articles because they are simply followed up by quick reverts, often with no edit summary.
• I was planning on coming up with some conclusion to this complaint to convince you to take action, but you know what, typically as of late I've even lost my motivation to do that. I just don't care; it's a waste of time and probably won't get the atmosphere between editors back to what it used to be anyway. The problem is that all you can do (or are willing to do anyway) is impose bans based strictly upon the word of the rules interpreted specifically based on the individual situation. If you took a minute to look at the big picture and understand the impact that certain users are having on the entire I-P editing community with their constant infractions and battles, maybe you would think of a different solution. Breein1007 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much battling going on. However, admins are limited in what they can do; basically they can block or ban disruptive users, but they can't make them cooperate. So, other than the current individualized rules enforcement, we have little option but to topic-ban a lot of people for a long time just to stop the battling. But I feel we don't currently have a clear overview of who such a ban would need to include. I've tried to start something at WP:WPAE, but participation by other admins so far is limited.  Sandstein  17:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you, hopefully it will lead to something in the future... meanwhile, I take your lack of comment about the interaction ban as indication that she didn't violate it by linking to diffs of Mbz1 and complaining about them? Breein1007 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably yes, but I would prefer that another admin take any required action.  Sandstein  17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty disappointing that admins can be intimidated into inaction by bad behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that I'm pretty fed up with having to do most of these unpleasant admin actions with respect to mostly quite unpleasant people. The violation (if any) in this case seems pretty transient and no other banned editor has officially asked me to act (not that I'd encourage them to), so I do not feel compelled to act.  Sandstein  20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you have a thankless job and frankly you couldn't pay me to do the volunteer work you do. I think the only way the IP topic will calm down (as much as is can calm down) is through escalating topic bans to problematic editors. On both sides. I think you've been doing an excellent job with that so far. Still, the fact that an editor through bad behavior can get admins to think twice before interacting with them (and you're not the only one who was approached with this and refused) is something that shouldn't happen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That huff by Factomancer isn't really worth going to the inordinate lengths process sometimes requires to implement effective sanctions. If they keep that up, though, I see lengthy blocks or bans in their future, as has already been the case with their principal opponent.  Sandstein  21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea if editors who don't want to see Factomancer given lengthy blocks or bans in the future do something proactive now to try to minimise the chances of it happening? Perhaps the same would have been true of Mbz1?     ←   ZScarpia   10:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take this discussion among yourselves elsewhere and do not put images on my talk page, thanks.  Sandstein  08:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, but how is it "huff" and dismissal when Factomancer does what she does, but it is worthy of a 3-month topic ban when Mbz1 what she does? When I put Nableezy up at AE and he got a 2-3 month topic ban, the admin that banned Nableezy banned me as well. You know what is going on here better than "some other admin" that would come in now. "Sometime in the future" is not fair to those who are banned today. Justice delayed is justice denied. Stellarkid (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (indent) I didn't see you all complaining when Sandstein also refused to block Mbz1 for her incivility for the very same reason. Just drop the stick, and stop beating the dead horse. Yazan (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It might help if people actually decide to discuss content in a centralized fashion, WP:IPCOLL has a number of recent discussions that seem all but ignored by a number of editors who are otherwise very vocal. Unomi (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork

6 months is a bit over the top, the usual block for first time socking is 1 week. nableezy - 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But then, socking in order to evade both a block and (for the third time) an arbitration topic ban is not usual.  Sandstein  17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork can be an asset to the encyclopedia. He shouldnt be pushed out, he should be walked back in. A nominal block for socking and the opportunity to file an appeal of the sanction would be, in my opinion, the best way forward. Whatever you do as an admin should be to improve the encyclopedia. This doesnt do that. nableezy - 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Drork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If this record offers promise for good editing in the future, I would hate to see a bad record. When Drork first showed up at the 3RR noticeboard in February, he seemed precociously stubborn and aggressive. By continued bad behavior, Drork is choosing to join the dark side. I think some evidence of reform, expressed on his talk page, would be needed to consider shortening his six-month block. If you are tempted to think that Drork's attitude has improved, take a look at the 'Ban Wikipedia' message at the top of his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at his second to last comment at Talk:All-Palestine Government ([42]), the last one he made he did repeat the same attacks, but forgetting that, the comment linked above is exactly the type of thing we need in the topic area. It is well reasoned and focuses on the sources and the content. We need things like that in the topic area. Let me ask you, do you think things have gotten better in the A/I topic area with these bans? I dont. I see new people who are unable to do anything but google for a favored phrase and argue endlessly on the most inane points, while having no knowledge of anything that didnt come from one side or the others propaganda. Drork is a smart person, we need smart people. I say this as the person who has been the subject of most of Drork's attacks and the person who filed both the AE request that resulted in the topic ban and the SPI report that resulted in this block. Even with all that, I know that if Drork just focuses on the content he can be an asset here. nableezy - 19:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Drork can be an asset. We all can. However, he's chosen to be a problem instead of an asset, and is treated as such. If he thinks my sanction is wrong, he is free to appeal it.  Sandstein  19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You got time for an RfC review/closure?

Hey Sand. I was wondering if you wanted to take a break from arbtitrations and I/P issues and take some time to review this? If you decline for want of time, I will understand. NickCT (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I've replied there.  Sandstein  17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. I have a bad feeling that this is going to be one of those debates that doesn't die. Talk about much to do about nothing. NickCT (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for permission to edit article

Hello, I would like to ask for permission to edit the article List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Of course there some laureates that were awarded for peace and they are under topic of my ban. I would not have asked for permission, but the list was nominated to get the status of featured list before my ban has started, and it was opposed by Malik Shabazz because he sees some problems with the references. I would like to add some references to the list please. May I please ask you, if I am allowed to ask some other administrators like my mentors, for example, or because the ban was posted by you I always should ask you, if I have similar questions in the feature. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In view of your recent noncompliance with the ban, as documented in your block log, I see no reason to make an exception here. The purpose of a topic ban is to remove you entirely from an area where your editing has proved problematic. I will therefore not make exceptions to the ban (and no other administrator is authorized to). However, since that list as such is not related to the conflict, your topic ban only extends to the part of the list that are related to the conflict, i.e., the laureates who were involved in the conflict. It is only these entries that you may not edit.  Sandstein  10:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right of course. I am sorry I violated the ban. May I please ask you one more question? I actually was not going to edit any particular entry. I was going to add the references to the name of the sections only. Am I allowed to add some references to the section "Laureates in Peace", and if not, am I allowed to ask somebody else to add it for me? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You may if the content that you edit is entirely unrelated to the topic of your ban. This is not the case with that section because it contains material related to the conflict. The same applies to asking others to edit for you.  Sandstein  10:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not touch this section, and I will not ask anybody else to help me out with that. I would also like to use the opportunity, and to assure you that the prior violation of my ban were made not because of disobedience o the ban, but because I did not realize how broadly my ban is constructed. I guess I do now, and I will not violate it in the feature, but if I would, I'd like to ask you to block me with all the strictness I deserve. I ought to learn how to behave at last! Congratulations on well deserved barnstar below! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For admirably sedulous administrative oversight, through the contentious Nacht und Nebel of chronic editorial conflict in the I/P area in defence of the rigorous maintenance of the highest standards in Wikipedia, in what will always be an unrewarding task of difficult judgement calls. Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  11:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done.     ←   ZScarpia   11:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree even with what are viewed as "pro-Israeli" editors getting in some hot water. I'll try to stay on the right side of what is expected from editors. I have screwed up pretty badly before. Nice work Sandstein and I hope the constant messages aren't driving you nuts.Cptnono (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

I have posted a request for clarification regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit. You may be interested in taking a look. NW (Talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

work on commons

Some time ago, I asked User:Nableezy to help me with pictures on User_talk:Nableezy#Qalunya and on User_talk:Nableezy#Bir_Salim over at commons; as I am not very knowledgeable about pictures...or Arabic. Just to make 100% sure: he can still help me on commons with this, I hope? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Any restrictions on this project do not apply to Wikimedia Commons.  Sandstein  19:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Huldra (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Siberian Wikipedia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Siberian Wikipedia. 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. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Balthasar Burkhard

On April 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Balthasar Burkhard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the "Interaction ban need tweaking" AN/I

Hi,

Just wanted to reply here to your comment. You implied that I've a "penchant for excessive drama". Maybe it was so when I was new on wikipedia. But I don't think that it's valid for my edits on the I-P issue and certainly not after the interaction ban was enacted. In any case, this statement is somewhat antagonising. Simply because there is a feeling, not unbased one I guess, that too many times admins are focusing on the drama certain issue causes and not on the essence. As like WP:DRAMA is the only policy of wikipedia of how to behave. Also, I've the impression that this attitude allow admins to dismiss any mistake they made. It's too frequent that this argument is used,-and I don't blame or imply that you are guilty of it-not at all. But I do think that this argument is a bit worn out. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

iSlate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect iSlate. Since you had some involvement with the iSlate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). mono 23:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One more question about topic ban

Hello Sandstein, I am sorry to bother you all the time, but you said you were the only one, who I may ask for permission to edit an article. So, here's my general question, hopefully the last one, about my topic ban. Let's say an article has few sections, some of which are directly and strongly related to the topic of my ban while others are absolutely not. May I edit those other sections? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not if the article as a whole can be deemed to relate to the topic. If in doubt, assume that it does.  Sandstein  16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

More references have emerged about Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i, so I request userification to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  10:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed

I'm afraid I may have inadvertently stepped into something perhaps I should have avoided. I saw Carnival in Bern at DYK when I was checking the status of an entry, and having lived in the region and being interested in the subject of carnival I tweaked the article a bit. But it appears that there's more here than I know. Please advise whether I should step out. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would you think that? Your edits appear to have improved the article substantially.  Sandstein  19:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I feel a little foolish. A question: I would write Berner (well I'd write Bärner!) but should it be Bernese or Berneser here? Just wondering. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In English, I've never heard of another demonym but "Bernese" for the inhabitants of the city and canton.  Sandstein  20:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth

You were involved in an appeal filed at AE a week or so ago by the above user in relation to his topic ban from the Armenia topic area. Could you please take a look at User talk:AGK#TDLS AE appeal, and if you can, offer comment? He makes some compelling arguments, and I am inclined to think that a topic ban was too harsh and/or that a second chance is in order. Thanks, AGK 13:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I'm not asking for you to vote in support of overturning the sanction. As you say, that kind of thing can only be done on AE or whatnot. I'm only asking for your thoughts on whether a second chance would be warranted. AGK 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow

HalfShadow was being funny, with that picture and stuff at AN/I. Then he was mad because he was blocked for what he did, so you should not punish him because he is upset, you should lighten up on HS because we need him. AN/I would be all serious problems and boring if people get blocked for humor. I think that he has been blocked too long, please think about that for a while. 68.28.104.232 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ulmgambolputty

• Ulmgambolputty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:SPA account on topic of Scientology, see only edits to articles on Wikipedia, [43] and [44]. This has been a prior pattern of SPA accounts on this topic, to show up and remove the word "controversial" from appearing anywhere in the lede of articles relating to front groups of the organization. Can you please give the account a warning, notifying it of the relevant applications of WP:ARBSCI? I will refrain from doing it myself, as I have been involved in improvement of quality-rated content on the topic. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, thanks for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian

Pity only that Varsovian was already warned very recently on the article talk page. [45]. How many more warnings will he get? If you read the discussion on ANI, the part about Mr.Moszynski, Varsovian is continuing to claim that he is a liar even if he has completely zero sources for that.  Dr. Loosmark  17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please post a diff showing where I use the word 'liar' on ANI. Thank you. Varsovian (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just discovered that it seems that Varsovian was already warned for his behavior on the London Parade page in October 2009 for [46] for engaging in tendentious "original research" and aggressively edit-warring. Six months later he still engaging in original research and edit-warring and he still receiving "warnings". One doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry.  Dr. Loosmark  17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your emotions are of no interest to me. I have commented further in the ANI thread.  Sandstein  19:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I read your comment at ANI. Interesting, the guy is doing the same kind of disruption on the same page after being warned twice, makes false claims on sources, calls people liars, fails to even admit that he edit warring was bad but escapes sanctions because he "reverted himself". (And read his edit summary he claims he reverted himself "to avoid wiki drama", not because what he did was wrong). Lets stop kidding, any Polish editor would be put on 1RR and topic bans if they would had done 10% of what Varsovian did. I for example got hammered down with a heavy 6 months long sanctions after two reverts, no edit wars, nothing and I reverted myself too.  Dr. Loosmark  11:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian again

Instead of being happy that he narrowly avoided sanctions Varsovian is at it again. There is a discussion on the Frederic Chopin talk page whether he should be considered "Polish" or "French-Polish". user:Varsovian appeared and made this edit [47]. (note that nobody ever claimed that the British excluded the Poles from the parade because they were nasty people). This is a clear attempt at trying to spread the battlefield from the London Parade article to Chopin article, as the London Parade has absolutely nothing to do with Chopin. I ask you enforce Digwuren arbitration to Varsovian.  Dr. Loosmark  15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere.  Sandstein  17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, and (to the best of my knowledge) nobody has ever posted stating that Chopin should be described as purely French but that is still being discussed. Just as I have never claimed that Chopin was a bastard but a certain editor claims that I did. However, as you find the ironic comment about myths to be so offensive, I will strike it all through. Do let me know if you'd prefer that I delete the entire comment. Varsovian (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, nobody has ever posted stating that Chopin is purely French but that is still being discussed because the topic is clearly Chopin nationality. Trying to spread the disagreements from the London Parade article is something completely different. I hope Sandstein won't fall again for the "I reverted myself so nothing happened" trick again although I won't be holding my breath.  Dr. Loosmark  15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Remind me, was it me who brought up the topic of WWII myths? And isn't it you who is on that very talkpage accusing another editor of being a racist (which is what a race-baiter is)? Varsovian (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I have not brought up any myths and I have not accused anybody of being racist on that talk page. Please Varsovian stop making up things, it doesn't help your cause.  Dr. Loosmark  15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC) You are perfectly correct that you did not bring up the topic of WWII myths: and neither did I. However, you have said "Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors" [48]. You are accusing Dan of race-baiting. Race-baiting is a form of racism. I would be most grateful if you could refrain from saying that I make things up: if anybody has a record of making things up when it comes to what other editors, it is you ([49] where you falsely assert that I claimed Chopin was a bastard). Varsovian (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I wrote that because comparing Chopin seeing himself as Pole, with a person seeing himself as a dog, is disgraceful. However I have not reported Dr.Dan because at least he still stick somewhat to the topic. As for the other part of your post Varsovian, I think it would be better for yourself if we don't go into the that disgraceful "Chopin is bastard" incident. Be happy that's a bygone.  Dr. Loosmark  16:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I should be happy that you have decided to stop claiming that I called Chopin a bastard? Would you like me to also thank you for deciding to stop lying about what I said? Or is merely my happiness sufficient for you? Would you say that your accusation that Dan is a racist fits with WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I have not accused Dan of being a racist and I don't think he is a racist. Seems that once more you reverted to your old tactic of throwing 360 degrees accusations to make a mess and muddy the waters. I will let Sandstein evaluate your behavior and I won't comment in this thread anymore, unless Sandstein asks me too.  Dr. Loosmark  17:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The offensive comment is now struck through. If you'd like to do something constructive, I have posted a list of proposed changes to the London Victory parade article at that article's talkpage. Why not have a look and work with me on improving the article? Varsovian (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Again and Again

Sandstein, I am wondering whether users are permitted to escape sanctioning by hit-and-run tactics, that is striking some articles, and then retreating in time, before admins can (or are willing to) act effetively? After a hiatus of weeks or months, rinse and repeat, deja vu all over again, etc.

You seem to be very patient with User:Loosmark, who has a habit, apart from his back and forth semi retiring, to ask you here to intervene against his foes. On the other hand, only six weeks ago, you readily blocked me, for what you called "nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct and harrassment". I'm wondering how you would describe the recent behavior of Loosmark? You once again complied with his demands and Digwuren-restricted his opponent User:Varsovian, so one might say that harrassment was successful here. Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination), where Loosmark, against overwhelming consensus of many neutral editors, does not hesitate to once again defend the vanity article on EEML member Poeticbent. Can this be explained other than with nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct on behalf of a fellow Pole?

Following Loosmark's examples, may I ask you about User:Mamalala, who showed up again recently, and got warned by FPaS, but not placed on Digwuren notice?

Another example is User:Space Cadet, a very seasoned user and sock puppeteer (self admitted to User:Tirid Tirid) who was placed under Digwuren editing restriction in 2008, occasionally returns to conduct edit wars, mainly on German/Polish place naming. In the summary to his recent four reverts in prolonged editwars, that include adding Polish claims to German folklore figure Rübezahl, switching of historic German place names to current Polish ones in Wilhelm Gnapheus and Mauritius Ferber, and repeatedly re-adding a superfluous mentioning of Danzig/Gdańsk to the article on the Swiss printing hose Henricus Petrus, he called me a hardheaded edit warrior.

Just wondering. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I voted for keep the article about mr.Richard Tylman because I think he is notable enough and I also find it silly that the article in question keeps being nominated. How is that "BATTLEground conduct on behalf of a fellow Pole" is beyond me. If it's not possible to vote for 'keep' then what's the point of having a vote anyway?  Dr. Loosmark  17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I rest my case. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Recruiting on other wikis

I've just found out that Sulmues (talk · contribs) attempted to recruit people on the Albanian wikipedia to join him in his battles here, [50] [51] (translation: [52]), barely a week after you warned him to cease and desist from WP:BATTLE behavior. Please advise. Athenean (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Albanian and that translation is largely incomprehensible. Anyway, whatever people do on other Wikipedias is not this Wikipedia's business. It may become our business if meatpuppetry actually occurs in the English Wikipedia.  Sandstein  18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we certainly did have an influx of reverting-only accounts and IPs on Albanian topics of late (e.g. Stupidus_Maximus (talk · contribs), TinaTrendelina (talk · contribs), and various others mentioned at the SPI case pages for Lontech and Sarandioti, although none that I have found can be exactly linked to the timing of that posting on sq-wiki. In any case, I can figure out enough of Albanian and of its Google translation that I can confirm it's a rather blunt attempt at recruiting meatpuppets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, don't accuse other users when none of you has any level of knowledge in Albanian. He's just asking for users who know English well to translate Albanian articles in English wikipedia. And he's explaining that he has been reported many times, when he mentions Athenean.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I unintentionally overwrote your unblock decline for User:Bubbleshum. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  06:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hewitt WP:AE

Since you have been familiar with the Hewitt arbitration case before: do you have the time to look at Wikipedia:AE#Incompleteness_theorems when you get back online, if nobody else gets to it before then? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Hill (blog)

I'm concerned by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog) as "no consensus" without any obvious reference to the arguments rather than the raw numbers (as you know, AfD is not supposed to be a vote). As Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus says,

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.

The core argument for deleting or merging this article was lack of notability. I don't see any reference in your closure to this argument, or indeed to any factor other than raw numbers. Could you explain? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost all "keep" opinions (by Nsaa, Fell Gleaming, Off2riorob, Electroshoxcure, Cla68, Traxs7 and Weakopedia) are based on the argument that the article Bishop Hill (blog) is sufficiently sourced to pass WP:N, even though not all opinions explicitly mention that guideline. Clearly you and others disagree about this, but the question of whether the sources are sufficient for notability is something that reasonable people can disagree about, i.e., it is not for me as the closing admin to decide who is "right".  Sandstein  07:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Samar Abed Rabbo

Could you provide me with a copy of the talk page for that article? I pasted a bunch of refs to articles there that may be relevant to Abd Rabbo family incident. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 07:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link as per the edit notice on this page.  Sandstein  07:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

[53] Tiamut^talk 07:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Posting content on your talk page.  Sandstein  08:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Closure

There is a merge proposal which has been running for 8 days now. There is a clear consensus on the talk page for no merge [54]. As an uninvolved can you close it like you did the bishop hill blog AFD? mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, this looks too political for my taste.  Sandstein  12:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)