User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/August

Opinion wanted

The following discussion 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.

---

Hi Sandstein, I have noticed a couple of places where it has been suggested that preciseaccuracy (talk · contribs · count) is a returning user. With this post User:Noon has suggested that this user is factomancer (talk · contribs · count) aka factsontheground (talk · contribs · count). User:Mbz1 has also asked pa if they are a returning user went on to suggest that "precise" is not real identity and has now started referring to pa as "she" which matches factomancer's gender.

Noon highlights the fact that pa is focusing on an article created by factomancer as the key reason for identifying the two users as the same. Looking at the histories, I see that they both use edit descriptions rarely and there is a tendency to repeatedly return to a board or talk page and make additions to their posts. Factomancer was accused at AN/I of making spurious complaints and I think pa's complaint against Mbz1 and the Hebrew broccoli user was spurious. Now I notice, that the last page of history for factomancer contains quite a few posts to your talk page. I therefore wonder whether you feel that the style of postings to user talk pages and admin boards look the same. I'm asking because I've got a poor record of succes at SP/I and CU and the equation of the two users isn't my idea anyway. Noon impies that they are too busy to do the donkey work and Mbz1 has an interaction ban with facts so can't raise the SP/I. The interaction ban is 2-way, so facts would be in violation of it if she is pa. Would you care to express a view? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the forum in which such concerns should be discussed is WP:SPI, because it provides a more transparent process, ensures that all concerned are heard, and requires reports made in a format that facilitates investigation. If a user has a sock concern, it is in the first instance up to them to "do the donkey work", as you put it, and not to investigating administrators.  Sandstein  11:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein, I do have some concerns about user:preciseaccuracy. May I please file an spi request in spite of my interaction ban? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter cohen, I have briefly looked at the contribs of both accounts. Your report here is not specific enough to allow an investigation of your concern. Very general statements like "style of postings" or "spurious requests" (many people make lots of these, unfortunately) are not useful. Any SPI report should tell investigators exactly which edits they should look at, and why you believe that these edits are meaningful for an SP investigation.  Sandstein  18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and for your time. I asked because I didn't think it would be very good if it were treated as an open secret that facts and pa were the same person. (It would be particularly bad if they are different.) I thought that your personal experience of dealing with facts might make it easier for you to recognise her. But it looks as if we'll have to wait for Noon or someone else to put together a case.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be regarded as meatpuppetry/violation of the ban, if Mbz1 emailed me her reasons for thinking the users the same and then my deciding how convincing I think the case is and then raising an SPI only if I am convinced?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users applies, so in principle, what you propose may work, unless the interaction ban is worded in such an (unusual) way as to prohibit this.  Sandstein  19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If Peter Cohen believes their is evasion than it is by his own volition and not for MBZ1 that the case can be started. Certainly be exceptionally critical of anything emailed to you Peter Cohen but don't shy away from pulling the trigger if you are convinced and any evidence leads you to seek out more. Cptnono (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was me, who asked Peter to ask Sandstein here. So Peter is guilty in nothing, only I am.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please stop this immediately. I will consider you to be in violation of your interaction ban if you make one more edit related to this matter.  Sandstein  20:03, 2 August 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.

arbitration enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against user:Varsovian for breaking the interaction ban with me, here is the edit: [1]. Even if he claims that he is only commenting Dan's post, it's clear that he inserted himself directly into the discussion I had with Dan (and quite literally too, he inserted his post between mine and Dan's which is provocative). In my opinion he is doing the exact opposite of what the interaction ban is meant to be - stay out of each others' way.  Dr. Loosmark  11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein am I allowed to reply to the request which appeared bellow?  Dr. Loosmark  12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked Varsovian for 55 hours, Sandstein -- your call on whether Loosmark gets one as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with that block. From a procedural point of view, it would be useful to explicitly label such blocks as WP:AEBLOCKs so as to prevent them from being inadvertently lifted. I'll address the request concerning Loosmark in the section below.  Sandstein  22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against Loosmark for breaking our interaction ban. Here are the edits: [2], [3], [4]. By repeatedly arguing with regard to EB (the relevance of which I was first to question and had repeatedly discussed before Loosmark entered the discussion) in my opinion Loosmark has done the exact opposite of what the interaction ban is meant to be: stay out of each others' way. If he wished to argue with regard to EB, he should have made it crystal clear that he made no comment on or reference to me by explicitly stating that he made no reference to or comment upon any post by me and made no comment on or remark concerning or reference to me. Varsovian (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined. It is too far-fetched to construe making a reference to Encyclopedia Britannica as an interaction with you. "Explicitly stating that he made no reference to or comment about any post" by you would, on the contrary, have constituted a prohibited interaction.  Sandstein  22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unorthodox solution at AN3

Thanks for your action here. It appears very sensible, but we should soon expect claims that admins don't have the power to do such things! The link in your closure doesn't work (injunction should be changed to restriction). EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you. I think it's a very sensible solution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of the users concerned for going along with my approach. EdJohnston, yes, admins don't have the authority to enact general restrictions... but they have the authority to block edit warriors, so as long as the restriction is in the form "I'll consider it edit warring and block you if you do X", it should work.  Sandstein  23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Tarun marwaha/ZiaFatehabadi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Tarun marwaha/ZiaFatehabadi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tarun marwaha (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. You might not have noticed, but your request at Wikipedia:DRV#4_August_2010, is malformed and that does not appear in the table of contents. I'll try to fix that for you. Thanks for informing me.  Sandstein  05:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoot firsth, think later.

How can you enforce a arb restriction for sanctions that have expired? [[5]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The restriction Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted lasts for one year, i.e., until 20 October 2010. It has therefore not yet expired.  Sandstein  05:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

3) Brews ohare

Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken. (motion link)

   Passed 10 to 1 on 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 

His sanctions expired. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. I'll request clarification from ArbCom.  Sandstein  06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mention

Howdy. Just an FYI I've mentioned you in passing [6] thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Trudy Späth-Schweizer

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Query re Creekolp56

Hello Sandstein, I hope you are doing well. :) I was wondering if you could please leave a notification for Creekolp56 (talk · contribs) at the user's talk page, regarding WP:ARBSCI and the possible remedies therein? I have left several notices at the user's talk page, to no avail. The user continues to violate WP:BLP, by adding sources that blatantly fail WP:RS, to a BLP page within the topic of WP:ARBSCI. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that's immediately problematic. The weblink, while a blog, is a blog run by the reputed magazine Nature, and the actual source is not the blog but the television programme, Channel Seven's Today Tonight program in Australia, which is probably a reliable source. Maybe he just needs help presenting and formatting his sources.  Sandstein  07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will leave a note about that. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of action taken concerning edtior Brews_ohare

Editor Sandstein:

I have filed an appeal of your action banning me indefinitely from contributing to the pages Speed of light and Talk:Speed of light. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation Due to Harassment

User:WGFinley previously blocked me for one week on a spurious pretext, which you recognized in reversing the block. [7] He is now harassing me once more on my talk page. This would not bother me, except that I fear he is trying to build another spurious case in order to block me again. I'd like to prevent another spurious block from occurring, and request your intervention to end his harassment against me. He's claiming I'm being "uncivil", and cites examples. To give just one example of the kind of harassment I'm receiving from him, here are his charges of being "uncivil" against me:

WGFinley: "I just gave you three undiffs from today where you have been uncivil. 1) Making a false accusation of Ling calling you a liar when he simply asked for sources, 2) all caps how he's flat out wrong, you had some other harsher comments you posted and then changed from the talk page [16] 3) ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN by either reacting combatively to your sources being challenged or inventing attacks on you."

An examination of each is instructive as to the nature of his continued personal vendetta against me:

1) The only false accusation here is Finley's. I did not "accuse" User:Ling.Nut of calling me a liar. Here is the exact communication I shared with Ling:[8]

Ling.Nut: "You told me that the sources say that, but very apologetically I must say that I need to see those sources."

JRHammond: "I've given you sources. Are you suggesting I'm fabricating information or lying about what the sources say?"

2) Again, the exact communication, in context:[9]

Ling.Nut: "You're flat wrong...."

JRHammond: "No, YOU are flat wrong...."

3) As for my having "ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN", here is my exact reply:[10]

JRHammond: "1) I am not proposing we draw a conclusion or imply a conclusion, only that we state a proven and uncontroversial fact. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and in order to not mislead them, a fuller accounting of the facts is necessary. Insofar as WP:SYNTH applies, therefore, it demands the fact be noted. 2) This is not original research. Published sources lend significance to this uncontroversial fact, as already noted. WP:OR therefore is not an issue, as I've already pointed out."

As you can see, there was nothing "combative" about my reply to Ling on WP:OR and WP:SYN (or my replies to him on any other issue, for that matter). Nor did my response consist of "inventing attacks" against me.

This is harassment, and the person harassing me has already abused his authority to block me on spurious charges once, as you will recall. Please intervene and assist so such abuse does not occur again. Thank you very much. JRHammond (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not undo your block, Fences and windows did. Sorry, administrators have no special authority to resolve disputes between editors; for how to do this, please see WP:DR. After a quick look, both you and WGFinley seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill here. The diffs claimed to be incivil by WGFinley at [11] do not appear incivil to me. But your getting all excited about WGFinley's criticism, talking about "vendetta" and "harrassment", is unhelpful and is incivil. My advice to both of you is to take some WP:TEA and drop the matter.  Sandstein  06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake. I thought you were the one who reversed the block previously. Ignoring the problem is not good enough, because WGFinley is an administrator who has blocked me previously on a spurious pretext, and I wish to prevent him from doing so a second time on similar spurious charges.

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target." [12] That fits to a tee WGFinley's continued spurious attacks on my character, so how is my pointing this out itself "incivil"? I am in no way, shape, or form being uncivil by observing the spurious nature of WGFinley's personal attacks on my character. If you could find any merit in his charges, it might be another story, but, as you just acknowledged, the instances of "uncivility" on my part claimed by him "do not appear incivil to me". That is an accurate observation. Given that you agree I was not uncivil in the instances he charged I was, obviously, logically, it is he, not I, who is being uncivil. Suggesting otherwise is most illogical. JRHammond (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, WGFinley personally identified me on my Talk page. I in no way try to hide my identity, as my username demonstrates. Nor have I ever identified myself, though, and it's come to my attention that this violates policy WP:OUTING[13], and constitutes further harassment. From the policy: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment..." JRHammond (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for the edit in which you think WGFinley outed you.  Sandstein  06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just doing some basic Google searching regarding the topic in debate as I knew very little on the topic. It didn't take me long before I found an article [10] on a website called Foreign Policy Journal and The Progressive Mind by one Jeremy R. Hammond. Interesting I thought since I knew a Wikipedia user with those same initials.

I would suggest you take a close look at the original research policy, especially the synthesis policy because this is clearly an area you are researching [11] and I think you should have divulged to the editors there you have written and published on this topic. In fact it all makes perfect sense. You made all of four edits before July 4th, you publish your article, someone makes a comment and refers to the Wikipedia article [12] and it appears you begin in earnest to "correct" the Wikipedia article. It is clear by the site and your comments to the article you have a POV you are wishing to highlight, it needs to cease on that article.

I think, in good faith, you should divulge to the editors there your writings on this topic outside of Wikipedia so they're familiar with your research and can determine if that research is becoming a part of the argument on the article. --WGFinley (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[14]

JRHammond (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Providing your full first name is not outing as long as you already edit under what you yourself say is your real name. I see nothing actionable here.  Sandstein  10:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense:

"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name ... job title and work organisation.... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..." [15]

WGFinly posted personal information of mine that I did not voluntarily disclose including my full "legal name" and my "work organisation". That's an indisputable fact. It's also an disputable fact that this constitutes "harassment" under WP:OUTING policy. So are you going to enforce policy or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am asking WGFinley to comment.  Sandstein  13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this pretty much speaks for itself. I've been trying to help keep things civil on Six-Day War (see its talk page). I didn't know much on the subject and so I did a Google search on it. There I found an article written by someone using the same name on Wikipedia. Since JRH has had other editors questioning his original research [16] and synthesis techniques and as you can see by the article's talk page and his own talk page he's not at all receptive to that criticism. [17].

I thought the article was germane since it mentioned original research he was doing as well as a definite POV. I brought it to him on his talk page. As I commented on his talk page page in instances where we have found researchers, scientists or journalists heavily editing a WP article they have done research on that person has disclosed it and in most instances been asked not to edit the article, he has not. He's reacted in the fashion he does with any admin that is critical of his behavior -- subjected me to a torrent of accusations and refuses to acknowledge any poor behavior in any of his diffs. WP:OUTING is just his latest card as it's not outing -- he uses his name as his account. I provided no information other than an article he wrote which happens to be the subject of the article he's been involved in an edit war in. --WGFinley (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"I provided no information other than an article he wrote which happens to be the subject of the article he's been involved in an edit war in." Well, now, Finley, that's not exactly true, is it (much like the rest of what you just said). You're right about one thing -- this pretty much speaks for itself. JRHammond (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

While providing the information about the website you edit is probably in violation of WP:OUTING, I don't see this as such a serious case that it would require the only unilateral action that I could possibly take, i.e., a block. You have the option to pursue dispute resolution or request oversight of the content at issue.  Sandstein  21:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only the website, also my full name/identity. There is no "probably". This is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:OUTING.

"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name ... job title and work organisation.... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..." [18]

A violation of WP:OUTING is a violation of WP:OUTING. There is no content at issue, so I don't see what good WP:DR does me. This is harassment, by WP's own policy definition. So the question is, are you going to enforce the policy or are you not going to enforce the policy? JRHammond (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The only appropriate enforcement action I can think of here is WP:OVERSIGHT, but I do not have that permission, so you would need to contact an oversighter directly. As you have not done so already, and instead copied the offending content yourself to my talk page (above), it is likely that an oversighter would decline the request to remove it from public view.  Sandstein  06:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"...the only unilateral action that I could possibly take, i.e., a block"

"The only appropriate enforcement action I can think of here is WP:OVERSIGHT"

Which is it? Is a block not appropriate? Finley violated policy. Are there to be no consequences for his doing so? JRHammond (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against Loosmark for breaking our interaction ban. In this edit I discuss "Nazi-era German sources about nationalities". One post and a couple of hours later Loosmark posts about Germanisation efforts regarding Dzierzon and Nazis ([19]). I further request enforcement for Loosmark breaking the terms the ban "The other party is not to be informed of, and may not reply to, that request": this edit by Loosmark is clearly in reply to this enforcement request by me. Asking if he can reply to a request doesn't mean he isn't replying to it. Varsovian (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The first edit is not actionable, as I can't see a strong enough link between the two comments. The second edit, on the other hand, constitutes a prohibited interaction and I have accordingly blocked Loosmark.  Sandstein  17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that Loosmark apparently wishes to appeal. I just pointed him towards the AE procedure. Personally, I have to say, at first sight, this block does seem a little bit nitpicky to me – the conditions you imposed for that process of complaint and counter-complaint were rather intricate, and I personally wouldn't have held it against a user if he just couldn't remember that detail about what he was supposed or not supposed to do in this situation, and did nothing but ask what he could do. No objections against the mutual article topic ban, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's nitpicky, but my instructions in implementing the interaction ban were express in that the two are not allowed to reply to enforcement requests by the other unless asked to, so Loosmark should have known better. No interaction means no interaction, and if I had not enforced the ban in this instance, I am sure that Varsovian would have complained just as hard as Loosmark is complaining now. Sometimes you just can't win.  Sandstein  20:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Anyway, I've pasted his request over to WP:AE now, with my comment, so let's just see what other folks say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced comment on AE

Thanks, Sandstein, for your review of Will's post regarding me at Arbitration Enforcement. I see that Will has added a comment[20] in the Results area, which is reserved for uninvolved Admins. Perhaps his comment should be moved. (Note also that Stifle's comment came before I posted my statement.) Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're sick of hearing about this

but if I go to the *^&#$%^ trouble of extensively discussing something with someone (regardless of how much in bad faith I think they're acting), ask for a third opinion, the person who gives his third opinion gives his/her own time to review the situation and provide it, and then both my discussion and the provided third opinion are completely ignored by, guess who, Varsovian, who inserts, again, his own OR, with POV completely opposite to every source included in the article... well, being sick of it is about the right state of mind.

Here is the third opinion [21] "I think the text that Chumchum added (and I just cleaned up a bit) suffices and fulfills WP:LEAD.". Here is the third opinon's provider's edit [22]. Here is Varsovian shamelessly POVing the lead in total disregard of the third opinion [23] (the parade is notable for the LACK of (initial, if he's gonna wikilawyer it) invitation). And this right after getting off a 55 hour block and making disrputive POINT-y edits to the talk page [24].

Yes. I realize this is a "content dispute" (which is starting to look more and more like an excuse to pass the buck around various admin board (AE, AN/I, WQ alerts all have claimed this) rather confronting this problem). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has violated every single content related guideline Wikipedia has. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has consistently engaged in tendentious OR with aim to push a particular POV, despite being warned about it by several uninvolved admins (not to mention editors). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has edit warred with over a dozen different editors over a period of almost one year. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has completely disregarded consensus and outside opinion and persisted in disruptive action, for almost a year. Finally, it is a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has wasted a TREMENDOUS amount of time of a large number of editors and administrators, both on the article and through auxiliary drama (like his filing spurious AE reports against Chumchum).

This simply needs to end. This is a content dispute but I don't see anything in Digwuren discretionary sanctions which precludes applying discretionary sanctions for repeated and tendentious violation of CONTENT policies. It says "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Varsovian has been warned (about half dozen times). Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia by POV pushing and engaging in OR, failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior by ignoring consensus and third opinion (I haven't even gotten around to the persistent incivility). Varsovian has failed to respect the normal editorial process by continually edit warring on the article for the past nine months or so. There's no reason why discretionary sanctions cannot be used here. A topic ban from the article IS THE LEAST that can be done. A full Poland-related topic ban is in fact in order as whenever he leaves the article alone to "hide" from admin scrutiny for awhile he just goes to other Poland related articles and does the same thing with the same negative and disruptive results. And just look at his contributions. 99% of them are Poland related. 99% of that 99% are NEGATIVE (which doesn't mean necessarily revert worthy). He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda. I can throw in some of his own statements as well which show he has problems with Poland and Poles.

If you need all this in form of a AE report let me know. At this point I have trouble seeing why even that would be necessary.radek (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I certainly can't form an opinion or take any action without a very well-reasoned request for arbitration enforcement that contains, dates and explains all diffs that support your contention - and nothing more than that. Statements like "X is a SPA with an obvious POV agenda" are worse than worthless without very convincing diffs to back them up - they are personal attacks and I will certainly sanction you if I see you continue to make such attacks on others unsupported by adequate evidence. But even if you assemble a report that you think is brief and informative enough to be useful to an admin who neither knows nor cares about the history of this dispute, the admin may still conclude that the issue is too complicated for AE (as it now appears, the disputes about this article go way back) and needs a full arbitration case.  Sandstein  19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright.radek (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that Sandstein needs to maintain an equitable stance, and that is fair enough. And to date he has been the most active admin on the article, which has required his patience, and that is commendable. Presumably "a full arbitration case" would be filed at WP:A/R either after or with a WP:RFC/U. That said, there may be a case for a WP:AE here. This edit [25] seems to have ripped out a WP:SECONDARY citation with no good reason other than a WP:OR assertion of 'fact' in the edit summary. That may breach WP:VAN, especially because this SECONDARY content has been fought over before; and worse, there was a seeming attempt to counter the SECONDARY content with WP:PRIMARY content by process of a slow edit war [26] [27] [28] [29] prior to the WP:1RR imposition. Sandstein labelled the 1RR as an attempt to change ways at the article, the question is whether his effort was respected. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Two requests

May I make two requests. Firstly, given that you say that "Statements like "X is a SPA with an obvious POV agenda" are worse than worthless without very convincing diffs to back them up - they are personal attacks and I will certainly sanction you if I see you continue to make such attacks on others unsupported by adequate evidence." and given Radek's remarks in the post which you were replying to ("he has problems with Poland and Poles." [30], "Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia by POV pushing"[31] and his now struck out comment "He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda."[32]), could you please consider placing Radeksz under a restriction where he is required to provide diffs with any accusations of misconduct?
Secondly, I really am getting tired of the accusations which can easily be interpreted as 'Varsovian is a racist' ("he has problems with Poland and Poles." [33], a person who 'has problems' with a particular race can easily be viewed as being racist). Saying that I am racist towards Poles is a lie particularly offensive to me given that I choose to live and work in Poland and my partner is Polish, as are her children and the majority of my friends. I note that Anti-Polish sentiment is listed in Category Prejudices, so if Radeksz is not calling me a racist he is at least calling me prejudiced, which is also a personal attack Could you please consider instructing Radeksz not to make such accusations. If you are not willing to make such instruction, could you please direct me to the appropriate board at which to request that Radeksz ceases to accuse me of being anti-Polish (which, as I have outlined above, is tantamount to calling me racist or prejudiced). Varsovian (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already told Radeksz not to do this again, see above. If you believe that additional action is required at this time, which I do not, please see WP:SEEKHELP.

May I also make an observation as long as my talk page seems to have the attention of half of Central/Eastern Europe. You and the editors you seem to be habitually in conflict with come across as the sort of people who tend to end their Wikipedia career with an indefinite topic ban or block for engaging in endless petty nationalist POV wars about silly and/or obscure topics (e.g., invitations to WWII victory parades!) and for wasting an enormous amount of the time of administrators and other editors in the process. If I continue to see the same names over and over again on AE, AN3 and here with (mostly unhelpful and overly aggressive) complaints against each other, I will have to consider taking rather drastic measures concerning the whole lot of you.  Sandstein  14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

I request enforcement with regard to the interaction ban placed on Loosmark. With this edit Loosmark re-introduces, in most sections word for word, text which I removed two days ago with this edit. Furthermore, Loosmark's edit contains wording ("the exclusion of all Polish servicemen", "303 squadron was the only Polish unit invited", "the Allies did not want to antagonize Stalin" and "This is considered one of the causes of the feeling of "Western Betrayal" in Poland.") which I specifically discuss and object to on the talk page of the article ([34]).
I also previously removed this same text from the article on 19 July and on 20 July (after Radeksz reinserted it) and I objected to the inclusion of such text on 20 July. Varsovian (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

May I also make a request as regards enforcement of the above? Given what you say above about unhelpful and overly aggressive complaints, I request that you consider, instead of imposing another block, suggesting to Loosmark that he considers self-reverting the edit reported above. Varsovian (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting is not possible now that all are banned from that article. Your request is declined because this is not necessarily a prohibited interaction: Loosmark's reintroduction of that text is not necessarily a reaction to you, but may well also be a reaction to this more recent removal of this content by another editor.  Sandstein  13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A question about all being banned from that article: under the terms of your restriction, of all the editors who have taken part in the edit war at that article only Chumchum7 is free to continue to work on the article. Was that a deliberate decision on your part? Please note that I entirely abide with the decision you make in the post above this one and am not in any way arguing with it. Varsovian (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question. One final question with regard to this topic (if I may): would it be improper/impolite of me to ask Chumchum7 on his talkpage if he intends to continue to edit the article in question now that the other parties in the edit war are banned from editing it? Varsovian (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. I see little point in such a question; you can see for yourself whether they edit that article or not.  Sandstein  14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. That wasn't quite the question I was asking but I did say it would be my last one on the topic so I won't take up any more of your time by re-phrasing it and asking again. Varsovian (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is their any template that would inform potential editors that the article is under sanctions? My question comes from this latest ban you came up with[35]. I am concerned that some editors will frankly be unaware that they are banned from editing the article-since most probably don't read every AE thread, nor the talk page or current list of Digwuren sanctions, and could be blocked only due to their unawarness. So perhaps there is a template that we can add to the article that would warn editors to first check what editing sanctions they are?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is. It's in the edit notice tha appears when you edit the page.  Sandstein  15:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't knew there was such thing. Thank you and have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of your ban on Brews_ohare

I have implemented an appeal of your ban on Brews_ohare here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock decline of U:Phan*

On 11-Aug-2010, you declined (in this edit) the unblock request of User:PhanuelB, but quoted one of his troublesome messages posted shortly before his prior block (of 13:14, 5 August 2010, blocked here), without allowing for a change of attitude since that time. I would have focused on his behaviour after the prior block, and up to the current block, otherwise, the quoting of very old stuff is like double jeopardy (being accused of the same crime again, even after being punished). His prior block expired at 13:15 on 7 August 2010, so I would expect quoting his edits after that time.

Anyway, User:PhanuelB wished to refute allegations of BLP vio in his block of 10 August, and I have a similar allegation of WP:NOR vio, so where do users go to contest having been accused of policy violations, after they return from block-timeouts? Reply here or back. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, if I focused on the wrong aspects of their editing in declining the unblock request, PhanuelB is free to make another unblock request in which they highlight any change of their attitude. With respect to your question, see WP:DR, but there is no process specifically to "contest having been accused of policy violations"; editors will often just have to agree to disagree about whether a particular action violated some policy or not.  Sandstein  08:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Sandstein. I'm somewhat distressed by your "Radeksz (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue." [my emphasis] This rather paints the picture that I and others somehow need "reminding" of something, that is, there's a need for a preemptive strike against a community of bad faith editors. I trust that is not your intent, but that is very much how I perceive it, as inappropriate editorializing as part of an enforcement decision against a single editor. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"The article at issue falls under 'related to Eastern Europe, widely construed' with regard to any current or future enforcement actions" would have been sufficient. I hope that clarifies my concern a bit better. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The archival box header text, "Radeksz blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue" is an accurate summary of my decision. Or is it the decision itself you disagree with, rather than the phrasing of the summary?  Sandstein  20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The decision is fine. I would have preferred the part not having directly to do with the individual concerned to have been worded with reference to the article, not to other editors--from which I inferred some expectation of poor behavior on your part. If you didn't mean to imply that, I'm satisfied--I want to make sure I wasn't taking something the wrong way (as that was how it came across). Thanks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Something a little different

If you fancy a change of European wiki-scenery and tempo from AE, I've just opened a Swiss-related discussion at AN/I you might be interested in here. Related discussions are to be found here, here and here. Best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Given this comment directed at you, I don't think we're moving towards a solution here. Knepflerle (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A RFCU may be needed here.  Sandstein  10:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Athenean

Sandstein, hi there and thanks for letting me drop these lines in your talk page. Is calling someone else's contributions "idiotic" (or "inane") ok by your standards see this? When I expected an apology [36], Athenean overtly calls me an idiot and threatens to not even warn him because otherwise he will report me [37]: Do I have to continuously be called an idiot by Athenean and let that go? Or do we Albanian editors have to know here in Wikipedia that we have a lower status, let's say we have kind of a B status in Wikipedia, whereas Athenean and the like can do whatever they want? An ANI filed by I Pakapshem Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean, was completely ignored because FPS influenced it. Do I have to just put up with that and tell myself that I am a poor idiot or should I expect that Athenean be sanctioned for incivilty? Please let me know. I really want to know what standards we have in Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly did Athenean use the words "idiotic" or "idiot"?  Sandstein  15:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He has used several times the word "inane", which per this means "idiotic". In my warning I gave him the benefit of the doubt, since none of us here speaks English as the mother tongue, but judging from his response, it seems like he has been aware all the time of the meaning of the word. He also is using irony saying that I discovered it right now. I just want to be left in peace from this user and improve the scope of WikiProject Albania. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Inane" is clearly not used in the sense of "idiotic" here, but in the sense of "self-evidently wrong". This is not actionable from an administrative point of view. Please be careful not to attribute words to others that they did not actually use.  Sandstein  18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Semantics can be used in different ways. How do you qualify these other edits?:[38][39][40][41] [42][43] --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not good, but more than a month old and therefore not immediately actionable. In view of your block log, I am reluctant to draw quick conclusions based on diffs of only one side of what seems to be a heated (at that time) conflict between two editors.  Sandstein  18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, they were copy pasted from the report that I Papapshem filed and they were actionable then, but no admin moved because FPS vouched for Athenean. You can take all your time to see that there was no reaction on my side. Thanks for your time. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting but this I_Pakapshem's 'report' was a major fact that lead to his indef topic ban (per wp:ae). Also Sulmues please be more careful on criticizing admin's comments (Fut.&Sandstein) and wp:ae results: We can really cooperate on a variety of topics instead of protesting about past reports.Alexikoua (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light clarification

Hi there I just wanted to let you know that the Speed of Light clarification has been merged with Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. NW (Talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Advanced 3O request

Hey Sandstein,

Since you are an AE sysop familiar with EE disputes, including the Gdanzig vote I assume, could you please take a look at this edit of mine which is being charged as going against that vote here. I ask pre-emptively, to avoid any escalation, and don't expect you to get involved in any content dispute. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  14:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats#

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of page: Buddhist Terrorism

Although I disagree with your decision to delete the page, I will stay by the majority's decision. Now how can I recover the content from the deleted pages? I need to incorporate them into other articles. Children of the dragon (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Only admins can recover deleted content. One of the people in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles may provide it for you.  Sandstein  05:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

unblocking of User:Mario1987

Is under discussion at ANI. Contacting you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

SVP..? Neutral..?

How "Neutral" are they? A "Neutral" article can only be written for a "Neutral" party. Not for a non-"Neutral" fending from common "Xenophobia" - party? Would you at-least put up facts? Not just praises? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_People's_Party

Hello. Even if the subject itself is not neutral (which political parties seldom are), our article about it must be neutral, see WP:NPOV. Both praise and criticism do not belong in an article, only relevant facts and analysis referenced to reputable reliable sources, see WP:V and WP:NOR. Please read the Wikipedia policy pages I've linked to, they explain how to deal with these problems.  Sandstein  14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

non latin text

thanks for the unblock, I am going to change the flag to something else, a little less controversial - that should be easy. the one problem I have, is not being able to have Japanese text on my signature, I could understand if there were particular issues with the Japanese text that I had on there, or if you said no controversial or nationalistic Japanese text, but what was the problem with the previous text? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that most people here can't read Japanese, and so can't determine or verify whether Japanese text in your sig is another nationalist insult if somebody complains about it, which frankly is a possibility with anything you do given your history. And I am not confident in your ability to determine whether something is controversial or nationalistic. But, as I said on your user page, I am fine with you using Japanese text in your sig if you first discuss it on WP:CCN or another community forum and nobody complains about it.  Sandstein  20:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As you were the blocking admin, would it be ok if I provided you with a reliable translation for Japanese text, if I wanted to use it and I would abide by your decision as to whether I can use it or not? If you don't trust the translation or do not like the meaning, I would not use it - that might be easier. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't verify any translation you provide. Therefore I prefer that you first ask for community input. But in view of the problems and all-around waste of time that your previous use of non-Latin text in your signature caused, I think that it would be a good idea to just voluntarily forego using any non-Latin text. Just because you can do something does not mean you have to do it.  Sandstein  05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps you are right - for the time being, my signature seems just fine. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC reblock

I have serious misgivings about your reblock and block extension of WMC. Not only can it be interpreted as wheel warring (you undo the previous decline of another admin to impose further sanctions), I also find it exactly the "respect our authoritah" kind of block that does no good. The original block was borderline at best. We do give users wide latitude on their own pages, and we allow them to reasonably rant about admin actions on their own talk pages. Please reconsider your block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A "previous decline of another admin to impose further sanctions" (which decline?) is not an administrator action and an action that is not taken cannot by definition be undone; consequently, my block does not undo an administrator action and is therefore not wheel-warring. On the merits, William M. Connolley violated a clear restriction, authorized by community sanction, not to edit the comments of others, period. Any latitude users may be given under certain circumstances does not authorize them to disregard explicit sanctions. Your comments therefore do not cause me to reconsider my block.  Sandstein  21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my grammar was unclear. "Decline" was a noun here. Atama had already declined the unblock request. That was the admin action in question. You then re-declined it, with additional sanctions. I find this both unproductive and inappropriate. There was no substantial violation of the sanction (and it's indeed questionable if it can cover non-CC pages), and just like editors should not rely on technicalities over substance, neither should admins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

An administrator action is any action that requires administrator privileges - declining an unblock request does not. Imposing new sanctions cannot be construed as undoing anything. Whether the violation was "substantial" or not is not relevant. If William M. Connolley is of the opinion that the restriction did not or ought not to apply to non-Climate Change-related pages, he should have appealed the restriction or the block using this argument, rather than repeating, to no apparent purpose except to make a WP:POINT, what another admin had already sanctioned as a violation of the restriction.  Sandstein  22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, an administrator action is any action an administrator makes in his position as administrator. Declining an unblock request certainly is such an action. It does not matter if you technically need the tools. And you might (or might not, of course), re-read the part about technicalities and substance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:AN/I. I intend to reverse one of your administrative actions for the reasons I've stated there, unless you post a convincing reason why I should not. As the user is blocked with talk page access disabled, I consider this a moderately pressing issue and would appreciate your prompt response as you appear to be currently online. Thank you. Notice that I have included a "no retaliation" condition on the proposed unblock to prevent WMC from hounding you. I trust that your actions were done in good faith (though in error). Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion:

Sandstein, would you mind if I put the block back to the original 48 hours and re-enabled WMC's access to his talk page under the following conditions: That he not interject his comments into others edits until such time as the sanction is listed, and that if he has a concern with the sanction, that he ask the community or the Committee to lift that sanction?

I am recused on the Climate Change case, so I cannot hurry a proposed decision any faster, but I am hoping that this will keep things from "boiling over", and no one can accuse me of any favoritism towards WMC (quite the opposite, in truth). If he refuses, and continues to be Point-y, then obviously it's a necessary step to stop the disruption... SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm of a mind to block WMC indefinitely until AC renders a decision if he keeps up this nonsense. The Wordsmith and Sandstein have complicated matters by placing these blocks. For the moment I agree with reinstating the original term (48 hours minus time served) and enabling talk page access. Discussion about any unblock may continue or an appeal can go to the committee. I think 48 hours for a little horseplay on one's own talk page is excessive, but I'm not tremendously sympathetic to WMC, who has created his own fate. Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I have no objection to proceeding in the manner you propose. This seems to more or less match what I wrote on ANI just previously: all we expect from users is to comply with sanctions until they expire, are lifted or successfully appealed.  Sandstein  22:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will let you do the honors. I believe we should clarify that the sanction does not apply to WMC's own talk page. He should be allowed to refactor his own talk page, including removing, shortening, or interjecting on other's comments there. That is a basic dignity we permit to all editors who are members of the community. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Any such modification of the restriction would need to be, I believe, the subject of an appeal of the restriction according to the probation's provisions for appeals. I've no opinion about whether this relaxation of the restriction would be a good idea.  Sandstein  22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And this is just to note that I'm going offline now.  Sandstein  22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein, I have done the needful things.. As I said on ANI, he does have the right to remove statements from his talk page, but I do not think editing/refactoring other people's statements is either a good idea, or allowed under his sanction. SirFozzie (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WMC has rejected the terms. I've suggested on the ANI thread that if he continues, the next step should be indefinite until such time as he does agree to the terms. SirFozzie (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd appreciate your opinion about whether this edit (replacing the copy of his e-mail with commentary rather than removing the message altogether) should trigger this next step.  Sandstein  14:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I.. would err on the side of caution there. That was reproducing a private email, something that is a very grey area. I would suggest you can bring it up at ani, but I personally would wait for a more concrete violation.. but that's just me. SirFozzie (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. That did not take long, now.  Sandstein  21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing requested

Hi Sandstein, You may have noticed this thread on ANI, it seems ripe for closing, I would like to ask for you to do so if you have the time. Best, un☯mi 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI - It had already been closed, but Unomi didn't like the result, and his subsequent edit warring drew enough attention to it to get it unclosed. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was recently blocked for intimating that SnottyWong should consider self-harm, and the editor seems to continue bear a grudge for that. I can't very well say if his closing was colored by that or not, but I think it is best for all concerned if the closer of discussion is A. an admin and B. somewhat versed in the dynamics of the IP sphere. un☯mi 21:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm staying out of that one. I've so had enough of the silliness generated by the people in that thread that I might be inclined to topic-ban the lot of you.  Sandstein  21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Climate Change seems to be a nice change of atmosphere. ;) un☯mi 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shri Ramakrishna Saraswati Kshirsagar Swamiji

Sandstein;

Could I understand why you have deleted the page titled "Shri Ramakrishna Saraswati Kshirsagar Swamiji" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.12.98 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The page Shri Ramakrishna Saraswati Kshirsagar Swamiji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has never existed, so I can't have deleted it.  Sandstein  11:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The evidence

Given the brewing storm at ANI over my indefinite blocks, while ArbCom is doing whatever they're doing, I'm open to forwarding the evidence provided by Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness to a limited number of admins. Since you frequently deliberate in the Israel-Palestine field on AE, I don't have a problem sending it to you, if you would like to see it. Can you please send me an e-mail via Special:EmailUser/Tariqabjotu, so I can forward them to you (again, if you want to have a look at it)? Thanks... -- tariqabjotu 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sending you an e-mail, but since I'm taking some time off from AE right now, I don't have a particular desire to review the evidence, which I trust you to evaluate correctly. If you think that it would help if another admin were to provide their opinion about the validity of the evidence in the ANI discussion, though, I can give it a look.  Sandstein  12:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 16:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Advice regarding AE

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me some advice regarding the article Croatian language.

A quick summary: this article has been subject to a slow but longstanding edit-war with two editors and numerous IPs repeatedly reverting to an old version in order to remove mentions of Serbo-Croatian, but which also removes several correctly placed tags [44] and now subsequent corrections to the grammar and poor English [45]. The removal of the material was rejected in extensive discussion on the talk page, where editors had to endure such personal attacks as this. Reversions are now occurring with no further discussion.

The recent edits of the two editors now reverting, Mir Harven (talk · contribs) and Croq (talk · contribs), have been almost entirely to this dispute or the closely related one at Serbo-Croatian language. Other related disputes have also occurred in recent months at articles such as Croatian grammar, Serbo-Croatian grammar, etc. One administrator, User:Kwamikagami has been involved in trying to keep order at these articles, but it is clear this this is not sufficient.

Am I right in thinking that this behaviour on articles in this topic area falls under the remedies of both WP:ARBMAC and WP:DIGWUREN? If so, which is more applicable and what is the correct procedure for going about using them to improve the situation at these articles?

Thanks and best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is covered by these arbitration cases. Since both provide for discretionary sanctions, it does not matter which is applied, but ARBMAC is more specific to the topic. If normal dispute resolution (WP:DR) and appropriate warnings do not work, relief from serious conduct problems, such as edit-warring or incivility, can be sought by making a request at WP:AE and asking for a revert restriction or topic ban. But AE will not resolve any underlying content disputes, and requires that the editors at issue be first warned specifically about the possibility of discretionary sanctions under these cases.  Sandstein  18:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's clearer now - WP:DR and normal consensus building has failed in this case, and a revert restriction under ARBMAC could help matters, so I might request that if this continues.

Regarding the warning - would it suffice to place the warning notice on the article's talk page, or does the warning need to go direct to the users' talk pages? Does it need to be placed be an uninvolved editor/admin? Knepflerle (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The remedy says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." So I'd say the warning needs to go on the talk page, but it does not matter who issues it.  Sandstein  18:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your patient and incredibly rapid replies! Knepflerle (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As the blanket reversions have continued aforce today ([46], [47]) - I have left the following notice at the two users' talkpages [48]. I would now consider that the two users are now fully aware of the ruling; if you feel any further explanation should be given or that the notice is unsuitable, please let me know. Thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI for JJG et al

Very early on someone brought up the WP:EEML decision as possibly having some bearing on our discussion. Having reviewed it now I think he's right and have added a section for discussion I'd like your feedback on. I let Tariq know as well. --WGFinley (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Delayed onset muscle soreness

You claim that the source I used in the article Delayed onset muscle soreness is "(unpublished? unreviewed?)". It's doctoral thesis and that thesis lists five papers supporting it. The theory you claim is the "summary of current mainstream research in Nosaka's 2008 textbook" actually references Yu & Thornell in the chapter of DOMS. (Yu, Ji-Guo is the author of the doctoral thesis I used as source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvasi (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll respond on the article talk page.  Sandstein  14:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect block

This discussion is over.  Sandstein  13:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Sandstein, I am not sure how this official business works exactly, but I would like to say that the user JanDeFietser does not make legal threats. He clearly states: "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JanDeFietser]he is a "refugee" from the Dutch Wikipedia, where he has been banned in November 2009 for a so called "legal threat" that there wasn't,[/url]". Thereby he refutes all allegations made by this 'NL_Bas' user. In fact, it is this NL-Bas that is transferring problems from the nl-wiki to the en-wiki and should be banned. I do not want to be banned for transferring problems from the nl-wiki to the en-wiki, however, I would like to say that all is definately not as it appears and this NL-Bas has got many personal reasons to want JanDeFietser to go away. So, he is also defending his POV here. Perhaps it is best if I clarify what I am saying. I can be reached at vanslingerlandt@hotmail.com. That way I can give you some facts that should be kept off the en-wiki. Anyway, to get back to the official stuff, I would like to see JanDeFietser unbanned and NL-Bas banned for the above reasons. How do I do that?--85.145.132.170 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. --Faust (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC) JanDeFietser was blocked for serious legal threats made at WP:ANI just now. The dispute between him and NL-Bas is of no interest to me except insofar as it disrupts this encyclopedia. I am not communicating by e-mail about this, and may block you if you continue to pursue these Dutch disputes here.  Sandstein  21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Sandstein, it may be me, but I do not see the 'legal threat'. I do see the user NL_Bas transferring a lengthy issue from the nl.wiki to the en.wiki though and I see JanDeFietser defending himself. I am not saying criminal law applies here on the wikipedia (as I have been told before), but in democratic countries in slander cases the person being slandered may always defend him- or her-self, even if this means slandering the original slanderer. The reason for that is that if this is not enforced a person can be the victim of slander repeatedly, without possibility to clear his or her name. This usually has an escalating effect for the slandered you see, especially when this is executed from a position of power. In this case JanDeFietser was trying to defend himself against slanderous remarks made by NL_Bas. So, in this dispute his defense would be allowed in democracies, and the slanderer (NL_Bas) would be punished. I think it prudent to have this apply on this matter and I hope you will point me to the right procedure to make it so. --Faust (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a democracy. The applicable procedure you ask about can be found at WP:DR and WP:BP. But I strongly caution you that the Wikipedia community has made it clear that we do not want this dispute to continue here; if you do make arguments related to who did what on the Dutch Wikipedia in any forum here, you are likely to be blocked.  Sandstein  22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I support deblocking JdF, and agree with User:Faust. This is not about import of external conflicts but about cyberpesting JdF. Ther WAS and IS no legal threat and WP:LEGAL does not apply here. JdF explicitly told this on his (removed) userpage (be it in Dutch), and stated he was desparately trying to avoid importing the conflict here. I disagree with the block decision and maybe u can investigate a bit more into all arguments behind this very complex matter to see the harassment JdF encounters here. I try to live up to high moral standards, and yes, wikipedia is not a democracy, but it also should not me a forum to slander users like JdF who i know to be of good faith. Yours sincerely, Tjako (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Hello Sandstein, I am unclear why you pointed me towards the guidelines. It seems to me that this issue is not about the guidelines, but about not reading what is being said and blocking somebody for REPLIES that are taken OUT OF CONTEXT. Apart from that I feel unfairly treated by your comment that I should not transfer problems from the nl.wiki to the en.wiki. It is not me that is doing that and I think you know that. I will make my case on the pages appropriate for that. I will try to find them myself. Thank you. --Faust (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Hello Sandstein. I would like to inform you that user Faust and Tjako are both fanatic fans and followers of the infamous weblog of the blocked user JanDeFietser. The weblog, what JDF uses to complain about dutch Wikipedia users. He also sometimes puts some legal threats on this weblog against some dutch users. This is his way to circumvent blocks in Wikipedia for legal treats. Faust and Tjako are 2 of JDF most fanatic supporters. The text on the user page of JDF is nothing more than introducing his problems on NL-wiki tot the EN-wiki. Banqkuo (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Tjako, Faust and now also Banqkuo, please stop continuing these Dutch Wikipedia or weblog-related disputes here, or you will also be blocked. That's my last warning.  Sandstein  12:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I would like to defend myself against Banquo's slander. I am no follower of JDF and I hardly ever go to his weblog, unless I get something pointed out to me. I have come into contact with him after getting a medicine of the same treatment he has been given and have found him to be a kind and patient man, willing to invest time and effort into examining all sorts of topics. The reason I spoke out here is because I think a great injustice is being done. Anyway, I am supposed to drop it, so I will. --Faust (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so that you know: User talk:Shell Kinney#JanDeFietser Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by previously blocked accounts

Hi Sandstein, I'd like you notify of the behavior of two returning single purpose Falun Gong editors HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) and Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs). Both users were previously given 6-month blocks on editing the FLG related articles because of their edit warring behavior [49][50]. Today HappyInGeneral returned to edit the FLG articles, beginning with The Epoch Times, and immediately reverted all of my previous edits [51] with little explaination whatsoever. As soon as I reverted his changes, Olaf also showed up for the first time in four months, tag-teaming with Happy by reverting my changes and accused me of not engaging in discussions [52]. Happy then engaged in a third revert in less than a few minutes [53].PCPP (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Please make any enforcement requests at WP:AE (see the edit notice of this page). Thanks,  Sandstein  17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem

Apparently reverting referenced information[54] concerning any article(s) of Turkish origin will result in being labeled a racist(which apparently is allowable on Wikipedia if it is said in a non-English language).[55]

I honestly do not know what User:Finn Diesel problem is, nor do I care. But, as long as some individuals can continue to converse on English wikipedia using a non-English language, they will see themselves as above simple civility. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not good. Blocked for two weeks.  Sandstein  18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

New section

So, would an appeal for the amelioration or shortening of a topic ban entail me filing an appeal on the Arbitration Enforcement page or placing a certain template on my talk page (which I think is reserved for ban users, no?)?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The directions for an appeal can be found at WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, subsection 2.  Sandstein  20:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you spend enough time as it is on those boards but just I figured I'd give you a heads up about it as well. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you check your e-mail? Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that your topic ban precludes you from pursuing this matter on-wiki. I also agree that the evidence which you provide per e-mail is very circumstantial. It is therefore not a sufficient basis for any investigation or enforcement action by me or others. You are of course free to request an investigation as soon as your topic ban expires, but in that case you would need to provide more detailed and convincing evidence, with diffs. By the way, my user name is "Sandstein", not "Sand".  Sandstein  18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But I thought we were becoming good friends and that I could call you by a nickname or something, kind of like how some people call me "Marsh"....well, anyways, thanks for the advice. And here's notice of my appeal on the ArbCom page, [56]. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was addressed in a recent e-mail from an outsider to Wikipedia as "Eguor", so be grateful, Sandstein, that your username was only disgraced so far as a small contraction ;). AGK 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this editor's reverts?

User:Tmhm[57] that has reverted his contentious edit[58][59] on the Armenian Genocide article(a violation of the 1RR covering all AA2). Also, this editor's accusation of anti-Turkish propaganda[60][61] is a violation of civility. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this concerns a topic area covered by arbitration sanctions. Please make any enforcement requests at WP:AE, and not here, as per the edit notice of this page. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

List_of_portable_computer_games Deletion....

I was just wondering why this page was deleted, List_of_portable_computer_games, as it is linked to by the List_of_portable_software page under the games section. I am a regular at wikipedia, and i use the info here quite often. i was just wondering about this page deletion... --redblue82 (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted because the community of editors decided to delete it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable computer games.  Sandstein  04:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could i see the contents of the page, for the purpose of merging to two articles together? or would that not be possible?--redblue82 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the content is unsourced, it is not suited for merging anywhere.  Sandstein  13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. --redblue82 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment please

I'd appreciate your input here: User_talk:Rlevse#Omission (starting with the Martin post). Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion wanted

Hello, I'm hoping that you'll give me an opinion on whether my actions on the Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel talk page are legitimate or not. If you'd rather not, then I apologise for bothering you. I've been listing sources which I think others (or myself at a later date) may find useful. As far as I know, this does not breach any guidelines or rules. Under the guideline on How to use article talk pages, it lists sharing material as a legitimate use, which I would have thought included supplying sources. Shuki has taken exception to the listing of sources and deleted some of my comments, citing WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTREPOSITORY (which I don't think are applicable). He also says that, by listing sources, I'm being disruptive. Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean stuff like that? After a brief look, I don't think this is a helpful use of the talk page. "Sharing material", in the guidelines, means article material, such as a paragraph that needs more discussion before it can be integrated into the article. Talk page comments should be focused on improving the article. Just dumping external links and external material onto the talk page does not do that. If you think this content is helpful for the article, you should present it that way: "Here is what X has to say on this topic and I think we should make reference to it in the article in the following manner, because ...". In the interim, I recommend that you remove the content if others find it unhelpful.  Sandstein  09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll stop listing sources without supplying explanations of why I have mentioned, or what use I think may be made, of them.     ←   ZScarpia   10:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User Loosmark

Unfortunately it seems that Loosmark has decided to celebrate the end of our interaction ban by resuming hostilities with me. Here he reverts in full an edit of mine which adds information regarding the subject of an article. Here he removes the majority of the information I add to an article. Could you please consider extending our interaction ban for another couple of months? Varsovian (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the information because Varsovian is trying to make Ukrainian Nazi collaborators look Polish. Needless to say he presented no sources for his "information".  Dr. Loosmark  10:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The two sources given here (by me) both state that Jakiw Palij was Polish-born. As for Jaroslaw Bilaniuk, Loosmark is the one claiming without sources that the man was Ukrainian, I'm simply pointing out that he was born in Poland and giving details about exactly where in Poland. I submit that Loosmark's reaction here demonstrates that he is unable to work with me and that for the good of the project we need to be banned from interacting with each other. Varsovian (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark is now using false edit summaries when reverting me. Here his edit summary is "provide a source" but the sources already given show that Bilaniuk was born in Poland and was a Nazi collaborator. Please reimpose the interaction ban before Loosmark's behaviour gets even worse. Varsovian (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were born in what was then Poland, but the majority of population in Eastern Poland was Ukrainian. Varsovian is trying to add the category Polish Nazi Collaborators to the articles and none of his sources states that. And seems that instead of using the article's talk page to discuss things, he immediately ran here, working hard to make Sandstein declare it's all "bickering" and set another of Varsovian's beloved interaction bans. Instead I think we are rapidly approaching the point where a topic ban for Varsovian from all Polish articles for 6 months is in order.  Dr. Loosmark  11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

These reverts seem to reflect content disagreements. Please do not discuss that content dispute here. The purpose of an interaction ban is not to resolve content disputes or to make you immune from reverts by each other. But if you do not manage to resolve your content disagreements without creating more drama, I anticipate that a full topic ban of one or both of you may be needed.  Sandstein  11:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I did try to discuss this (here) but that Loosmark was not interested in any resolution. Varsovian (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

AE requested

I request Arbitration Enforcement against user:Varsovian as he once again broke his Digwuren sanctions. The restriction as logged here (on 28 May) [62] is crystal clear, quote: Also, whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue. In this edit today [63] he accused me of wiki-stalking him without proving a single diff (or a link where he provided these diffs), something his sanction explicitly forbids.  Dr. Loosmark  19:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please make any enforcement requests at WP:AE, and not here, as per the edit notice of this page. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever for?  Dr. Loosmark  20:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that page provides for a structured and transparent discussion, and ensures notification of the other party. And also because I am currently tired of AE.  Sandstein  20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, you are "tired of AE" and notification is a problem. Okay thanks.  Dr. Loosmark  20:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not caring and admittedly not invited, I'd only remark there's far too much lobbying and complaining on talk pages of ArbComs and admins instead of editors going through the appropriate motions to file a formal complaint (with its bothersome prerequisites!), regardless of who is on whose/what's side. I shall do my best to take my own advice from hereon in. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't see your e-mail policy before I sent it, and wanted some feedback on whether or not I was imagining things.--Crossmr (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

United Flight 93

Hey Sandstein,

I am kind of new to this Wikipedia thing. There was a post I made about United Flight 93 and its memorials. I posted "Many cities wanted to memorialize the heroes of United Flight 93. Among the first was Marshall, Texas which by order of the City Commission, named "United Flight 93" a street in early 2002. The key note speaker was the mother of victim Lauren Grandcolas, Barbara Catuzzi."

You asked me to cite proof. All I can do is show you the minutes of the city commission meeting as well as a picture of the street. I was there and I believe that Marshall, TX had the first permanent (albeit a street sign) memorial of the heroes on UF93.

What do I need to do from this point?

Thanks, AEW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewalrii (talk • contribs) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I ask you to cite proof? I can't remember doing anything in relation to that. In general terms, please see WP:Citing sources for advice on how to cite sources. In general, sources used on Wikipedia must be published secondary sources.  Sandstein  05:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Azerbaijan covered by my topic ban

I just made a couple of edits regarding Tayıflı ([64], [65] and [66]) and see that WikiProject Azerbaijan could do with help from English-speaking editors. However, I'm slightly concerned, given that people are already discussing an AE report against me, that somebody might claim that Azerbaijan is in Eastern Europe and thus is covered by my topic ban. Could you please advise whether Azerbaijan is covered by my Eastern Europe topic ban? Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is not. The country does not appear to be included in most definitions of the term found in the article Eastern Europe, and I am not aware of any problems with your editing in that area. Of course, this opinion by me is not binding on others; another administrator who may evaluate any enforcement request against you is free to interpret "Eastern Europe" more broadly and include Azerbaijan. But I would advise them against doing so.  Sandstein  11:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the very quick reply. I'll make sure to avoid all aspects of Azerbaijan that involve relations with coutries further west (and to keep well out of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue). Varsovian (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban

The reality of the matter is that every time Varsovian returned to wikipedia he inserted himself /invented a new dispute. You accuse me of nationalistic "persistent POV-pushing pursuit", where exactly have I done that, eh? What a joke, you just made that up to justify your ban. Jaroslaw Bilaniuk, Jakiw Palij and Bohdan Koziy are simply not Poles, if somebody tries to add the category "Polish Nazi Collaborator" then he is simply trying to insert untrue information which needs to be removed. It's as simple as that. Did you care to check if there are any sources calling these guys "Polish Nazi Collaborators" or is that falls outside your intellectual capabilities? How is removing wrong information "persistent POV-pushing pursuit"!?

I am a member of 3 Wiki Projects, I worked on many different topic areas and improved countless pages, I have created 200 new articles, and a couple DYKs as well. And what exactly has Varsovian contributed to wikipedia apart from constantly creating disputes on Polish topics? Are you able to name one single page on which Varsovian did some substantial work worthy of mention in one year of "activity" on Wikipedia? I don't ask 30 or 40 pages but ONE single page.

Your systematic attempts at trying to equal me with Varsovian are both shameful and disgraceful, but I am not surprised. One can easily guess the morals of a person who blocked me for 72 hours after I simply and politely asked if I am allowed to do something. Or person who first refuses to do AE because there is lack of transparency and a problem with notification (good one that one) and then comes back a couple of hours later to do a revenge AE nobody requested. And miraculously the transparency, which just a couple of hours earlier was this big problem, is all of a sudden no problem at all.  Dr. Loosmark  12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for above "shameful", "disgraceful", and implications of immorality.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Whether or not these are blockable personal attacks, the comment including "Jaroslaw Bilaniuk, Jakiw Palij and Bohdan Koziy are simply not Poles" is at any rate a violation of the topic ban, as well as a good illustration of why it is required.  Sandstein  13:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Hi Sandstein. I'd like to bring to your attention the topic ban violation by user:Nishidani The user made at least three comments on AN/I thread concerning I/P conflict.[67]

[68]; [69]. Here is the link to his ban. Broccoli (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, please make any enforcement requests at WP:AE, and not here, as per the edit notice of this page. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never filed AE before. Could you help me please? Broccoli (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The instructions are in Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which you see when editing the page.  Sandstein  18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban question (another one, sorry)

On the basis of comments made by Chumchum7 (calling me a troll four times in a single post) and observations made by EdJohnston and yourself regarding notification of Digwuren discretionary sanctions, I placed the standard notification and an explanation on Chumchum7's userpage. I took care not to mention anything I'm topic banned from. However, I've since noticed that the standard warning template contains a reference to the area which I am topic banned from. Should I modify the standard warning template to avoid making any reference to it? Varsovian (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this text contains a clear reference to Eastern Europe and the EE-related DIGWUREN case, so you should revert this message at once if you do not want to be blocked for violating your topic ban.  Sandstein  13:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I've reverted the message as you directed. From what you say it is impossible for me to notify Chumchum7 of the discretionary sanctions, regardless of whether they may or may not apply. Could you perhaps be so kind as to suggest the best way in which deal with Chumchum7's breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Or should I just accept that Chumchum7 can call me whatever kind of troll he wants to as often as he wants to? Varsovian (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The normal procedures per WP:DR apply.  Sandstein  14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So WP:ANI? I would have thought that that is a step further than notifying Chumchum7 of discretionary sanctions and am not sure that I want to take that additional step. One other thing if I may: does the topic ban mean that I am unable to even use a template which includes a reference to the topic of my topic ban? I hope you don't mind all these questions, I just prefer to ask rather than put myself in a situation where something I say could be twisted and used against me. Varsovian (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're banned from Eastern Europe. This means you may not warn others against misconduct in the Eastern Europe topic area, whether by template or otherwise. If the dispute between you and the other user relates to Eastern Europe, think hard about whether you want to pursue any further action. Although topic bans normally allow actions strictly necessary for dispute resolution, it will be difficult for you to discuss the other user's conduct without violating your topic ban. You may be best advised just to let the matter drop, since you will now no longer be editing in that area and the dispute may therefore become moot. Of course, if the other user misbehaves towards you in a non-EE context, you are free to use all normal dispute resolution procedures.  Sandstein  14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed advice, it makes things much clearer. In this particular situation, the dispute regards comments made by Chumchum7 on another user's talk page, not on any page in any way related to the area I am topic banned from, so (with hindsight) probably using that template was not appropriate. On the other hand that fact that it isn't related to the topic banned area means that I can discuss this conduct. Thank you again. Varsovian (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)