User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/February

re: verbal

with respect to your comments here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Verbal... This confuses me. I'm not going to say that the current discussion on the page has proceeded in an optimal fashion, but it has been within tolerable limits - neither Verbal nor I have engaged in anything like an edit war, nor have I engaged in any practices different than the other editors on the page. I don't believe I should be punished for having raised the enforcement issue - you may disagree with the claim and dismiss it, of course, or you may agree with the claim and impose the (much milder) sanctions that I asked for, but going beyond strikes me as incorrect. I simply wanted to add a dispute tag and discuss the matter on the talk page, and I filed the enforcement request because Verbal wouldn't allow me to do the first and won't seemingly do the second. I'd ask you not to make the issue bigger than it is, please. --Ludwigs2 22:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read the page history as an edit war as described at WP:EW. We usually block all substantial participants in an edit war in order to stop it. This has nothing to do with you filing the enforcement request, just normal procedure. However, since the reverting seems to have stopped now after your enforcement request, a block may not be needed unless it recommences.  Sandstein  22:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, I understand. thanks. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein: I've asked for you to recuse yourself on the enforcement request. I would be happy with a warning to Verbal, I'd live with some sort of mutual sanction (I think that's unfair, but I can see it under a narrow interpretation of policy), but you seem to be angling for a way to sanction me alone, which is totally out of line with the actual events on the talk page and speaks clearly to a bias of some sort. If that's not the case, then I've misinterpreted your statements, so please clarify that; otherwise I hope you will take the correct action of recusing yourself and leaving the decision to others. --Ludwigs2 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Read more closely. An administrator will not recuse themselves just because you disagree with them.  Sandstein  06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I suggested, and I'm sorry you misread it that way; but no matter. I'm satisfied with the results. thank you. --Ludwigs2 07:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein. I just read your comment and it's got me thinking. As a very experienced admin and Wikipedian, I'd like to pick your brain ;-) I hope you don't mind. Wikipedia is large, has myriad guidelines and policies, and there are often conflicting interpretations of them. There are also completely conflicting interpretations among admins, with both enforced and unenforced sanctions for identical violations as a result. Needless to say even I get confused at times and I'd like to explore some thoughts about edit warring. What do you consider "edit warring"? To me it starts when the BRD cycle is broken. That cycle only has one cycle built into it, with no automatic "repeat" button. What do you think about this?

BTW, as one of the involved editors in that unfortunate affair, I'm not claiming total innocence. I'm not sure any editor at Wikipdia can! We've all made mistakes. I just want to understand this better so as to avoid this happening again. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, to me, edit warring is what it says at WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion". In 90% of cases, this is what happened where there are a lot of reverts in the page history by the same people within a short period of time. It is theoretically possible that such a sequence of reverts is not edit warring, but a stack of correct WP:BRD interactions, but if the reverts concern the same or very similar material, it's almost always edit warring, even if some or all participants also make talk page contributions at the same time. (The correct way to avoid edit wars is to talk instead of reverting, not to talk and revert.)  Sandstein  06:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just stating that "edit warring" occurred isn't helpful. That's a duh statement. It's imperative to find out who broke the BRD cycle. Everything that happens after that can point back to that as the cause of the whole mess, IOW the instigator and most guilty party. While it was User:Gandydancer who first violated it (and were properly reverted by Verbal and admin Vsmith), Ludwigs2 and Stmrlbs continued it, with Ludwigs2 making by far the most edits and reverts.

Here's what happened after Ludwigs2 arrived and made their first BOLD edit: BRDBRBRBRB (while discussion was occurring) ... with Ludwigs2 making the BOLD edits and thus being the one who kept violating BRD by refusing to acknowledge that their edits were disputed and that they should have stopped at Discuss. They acted as if there was an automatic recycle button after D, but there isn't. The reverts were attempts to protect Wikipedia from a disruptive editor who displayed ownership behavior in violation of BRD. The motivations were quite different. The greater guilt should be recognized, compounded by the bogus nature of the complaint, which amounted to throwing stones while living in a glass house. Ludwigs2 actually had the audacity to leave a message on my talk page telling me to follow BRD while they were the one violating it by continuing to make BOLD edits and reverts, and had just reverted my edit that restored their tags! They also mentioned deletion of tags, but one of my two reverts which favored Ludwigs2 was to restore a tag made by Ludwigs2, AND I did it before that comment on my talk page, and it was my last edit.

Treating those who violate BRD the same as those who are protecting Wikipedia from an editor exercising article ownership isn't fair. Motivation must be factored into the decision. A Solomonic solution would have been wiser, but instead we got a blind rubberstamp knock on the head as if there was no attempt to understand what really happened, and your previous statement on 21:34, 1 February 2010 actually admitted as much.

Somehow this outcome leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Punishment, not justice, happened. I do agree with the final result (edit warring is a bad thing), just not the reasoning behind it in your previous comment there dated 21:34, 1 February 2010. I hope that in the future you will either take the time to understand what happened on more than a superficial level, or recluse yourself and let another admin who does understand what was really happening take the reins. That's the problem with allowing and often requiring uninvolved admins to make those decisions. Sometimes an involved admin should be involved. Otherwise I still hold you in high regard and appreciate your efforts here. It just sucks when one feels treated unfairly, that's all. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, to make sure there are no misunderstandings, warnings need to be left for User:Gandydancer and User:Stmrlbs as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand where you're coming from. In my experience, most editors who are involved in an edit war believe that they are right and the others are wrong, and are miffed if everybody is sanctioned equally for edit-warring. But (a) from an outside point of view, the edit war itself is often the most salient feature of any dispute, and subtle questions related to who is most to blame for it are not perceived to be very important. More importantly, (b) it takes a lot of time and energy to find out who, if anybody, is more to blame than others for any given edit war (and most often all editors will be to bklame roughly equally). Since this is a volunteer project, administrators are often not willing to expend that energy (especially in an arbitration enforcement context) when just sanctioning everybody for the edit war is a "good enough" solution. This outcome also has the benefit of discouraging edit-warring and gaming the system. So, yes, the takeaway mesage is: "do not edit war, even if you believe you are not to blame for starting the edit war".  Sandstein  07:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that POV as well. Things aren't easy and you've got a lot to see to here. I fear that Ludwigs2 still hasn't gotten the whole point, that they violated BRD repeatedly in a big way, and thus kept edit warring. They still believe that it's OK to discuss and repeatedly force controversial edits at the same time. They need a clear warning that that's forbidden behavior. Otherwise keep up the good work. - Brangifer (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the other editors, any editor, including you, may issue them with a warning if a warning is required.  Sandstein  07:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As an involved party I don't think it would be wise for me to do it. I'm not interested in provoking anyone. It just needs to be done so no one can later claim they weren't warned. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've not warned them since they seem to have made only one revert each.  Sandstein  17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread, and prior Arbcom case

Hi Sandstein, I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you could have a look at this ANI thread regarding JBsupreme? It seems that these actions by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) are contrary to the remedies at the ArbCom Tothwolf case, notably "JBsupreme warned" and "Miami33139 and JBsupreme reminded". I was debating filing this at WP:AE, but the thread is already ongoing at WP:ANI... What are your thoughts on this? Cirt (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I do not think that an AE request would be actionable, because a remedy of the type "X is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks" is not, by itself, enforceable, and the enforcement remedy only refers to editing restrictions, which this warning is not. But of course, all editors are by policy prohibited from engaging in incivility and personal attacks, so any such conduct can be normally sanctioned by admins. In the instant case, the dispute seems to be about his deletion nominations, yes? I don't think that that qualifies as obviously admin-sanctionable misconduct, and the ANI request by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is frankly not a model of politeness also. But the Tothwolf case does contains findings about JBsupreme making questionable deletion nominations, so if his current ones are perceived to be a problem, I think that a RfC might be best suited to determine whether the community, or ArbCom, should be petitioned to impose an appropriate sanction. The ANI thread does not seem to be going anywhere useful. Regards,  Sandstein  21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, okay, good points, all. As to the last part, yes, the recent deletion nominations by JBsupreme do seem to go against the ArbCom rulings in Tothwolf - is that enough in and of itself for sanction, at present? Cirt (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the nominations, but assuming arguendo that they do (it might be best to wait to see how they turn out), of course an admin may issue a block for this, as for any disruption, but in cases of this sort - involving a longtime contributor and disruption that is not immediately obvious - I think it would be prudent to get consensus first. At this point, frankly, the disruption (if any) is not sufficiently obvious for me to undertake the somewhat tedious research to find out whether this is a blockable situation.  Sandstein  21:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you very much for your input. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AE notification

I'd like to apologise for not commenting at the AE thread. Until you posted on my talk page I was unaware of it. Ludwigs had notified me, but this was followed by a piece of spam and when I clicked on latest changes I only saw the spam. A prod for me to comment might have been useful! I don't think my comments would have changed much, but if you'd like a short summary I'll oblige. My main aim here is to improve the project and I only have limited time for that. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No apology needed. All users are free to comment (or not) on AE requests regarding them, but if they do not, the request may be processed regardless. I do not believe that a comment by you at this stage would have much impact on anything, unless it contains significant new evidence, so don't feel obliged to make one.  Sandstein  09:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Communist Holocaust

• I'll have to say, I've never seen two keep votes close a discussion as "no consensus". Maybe we should only delete articles if it's unanimous. Mandsford (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please link to the page you are discussing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Holocaust. There are no "votes" in AfD. As I explained in the discussion, three "delete" opinions were discounted for being unfounded in policy or for being moot. Moreover, the page was turned into a redirect after the first opinion and everybody (except you) appeared to ignore this, instead continuing to discuss the page as though it were still an article, which I find odd. All in all, this is not a sufficient consensus to delete this redirect.  Sandstein  05:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, help.

Hi! The history repeats: user:Jasepl launched a new editorial war on Aeroflot - Russian airlines destinations page. No reasons for editing except his opinion or angle of view as he says. Would you please intefere somehow. Thank you. --Dimitree (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's protected now, and you also participated in the edit war, which you should not. Reporting editwars on WP:ANEW will ususlly get a faster reaction.  Sandstein  06:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, despite repeated attempts at explaining, user doesn't seem to grasp that additions without a valid reference are generally not admissible, as is long-established policy (both Wikipedia's and the Aviation project's). And "Aeroflot Planning Department told me" is NOT a valid source, from any angle. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, despite repeated attempts at explaining, this Jasepl doesn't seem to understand that he launches these endless editorial wars again, and again, and agian. He demands VALID sources, without giving an example for any other similar date/flight/aircompany. Also, he always defigurates facts: instead of Aeroflot NETWORK Planning Department (that I citated as my source of inside information), he posts at every page Aeroflot PLANNING Department. There is an evident difference that changes the meaning/notion/concept - whatever! -of a subject we are talking. The same for GDS Timetable that use many aircompanies all over the world: it is not a VALID source for this Jasepl. --Dimitree (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:inuit18

This User:inuit18 is valdalisme the article Jamal-al-Din Afghani, but not with his account but only with ip-address and talks bad and he is scolding in his own language and you didn't understand it. Ask it to User:Ketabtoon to translate it for you. look here [1] and here [2]. If he can't talk like a gentlemen, than he has no rights to talk bad and scolding, and hide his face by editing this post without his account (he did it also in the past, look and read my talk page User talk:Abasin). I think is not right and wikipedia most do something against it. If you (User:VirtualSteve) are the one who has blocked me 2 times. I will see what you are doing with this. I will see your justice and of wikipedia. May justice triumph.Abasin-اباسین (Tofaan-توفان) 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not VirtualSteve (talk · contribs), sorry. If you believe an editor has been evading scrutiny by editing without logging in, please use WP:SPI.  Sandstein  20:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness Violation

Sandstein, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Supreme_Deliciousness now formatted correctly? Nefer Tweety (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so.  Sandstein  20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong SPAs

I just wanted to alert you that the Falun Gong SPAs banned from editing there may have shifted their attention to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. I had pre-emptively put this article on my watchlist knowing that it was a likely target of the offensive. I would say that they are editing in violation of WP:COI. I have done all I intended to do in terms of reverts. Any advice would be more than welcome. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to me what is the problem with Propaganda in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I see some content dispute reverting, but nothing extraordinary.  Sandstein  13:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jude12309

FYI, this user is continuing his/her edit warring behavior now that the block has been lifted. Still no signs of any communication :( Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jude12309 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now indef-blocked, thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletion,

Hi Sandstein,

It is my belief that the page referring to me was mistakenly deleted. Article Title: Ean Sugarman

After reviewing many of the guidelines for Wikipedia and looking at other artists and producers articles, I realize that the article did read somewhat like a promotion and not a factual account of accomplishments.

The page was originally created by a hired editor. I recall that when the page was active, a Wikipedia editor had gone through and asked for further citations & verification for some facts.

This was never done and most likely why the page was deleted,

However apart from the commentary, all the statements referring to awards and chart positions for music productions are true and accurate. I have reviewed other successful artists and producer pages

For that reason, I ask that the page be re-instated and I will have an editor go through and cite and verify anything that is likely to be challenged and have the editor delete any content that is not presented in the essence of Wikipedia.

I am happy to engage in a dialogue with you when there is a misunderstanding.

Thanks,

Ean Sugarman

link to [deletions page] on Ean Sugarman Jan 19, 2010 from Sandstein. [[3]]

66.229.35.133 (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ean Sugarman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ean Sugarman as a copyright violation. It may be recreated by anyone but yourself, because we discourage people from writing about themselves (see WP:AUTOBIO). Before recreation, the article should be checked for compatibility for our inclusion standard WP:BIO, or it may be deleted again.  Sandstein  05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

A similar situation as the one mentioned here is occuring. A relative newbie insists on deleting properly sourced material over the objections of other editors because he believes it isn't "true". I have explained our verifiability policy and the need to discuss INSTEAD of edit warring, but he has deleted yet again. The discussion is here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skepticism#False_claims

The editor's edit history (note the edit summaries):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wiggalama

Their talk page history (they have a habit of deleting and ignoring warnings):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiggalama&action=history

The history of the Skepticism article (note IP edits supporting Wiggalama's deletions):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skepticism&action=history

I don't want to be accused (like last time) of edit warring by restoring the improperly deleted material. I don't want to get blocked and I feel paralyzed and unable to defend Wikipedia against policy violators. What to do? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiggalama is continuing to delete properly sourced content over the objections of other editors, and is now insulting other editors. Please do something. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

More insults and yet another deletion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been discussed at ANI and the editor blocked. Resolved?  Sandstein  05:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ec Yes, resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Descombes

Thank you for your attention to the repeated BLP violations. 271828182 (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear what is going on. The deletions of external links in the Vincent Descombes article had been described, not by me, as vandalism, and Hapavortex eventually stopped his/her vandalism. Another person, "Bruce Tucker," made false assumptions about my personal life and resumed this vandalism. After an extended talk (you can check out the talk page), he ceased his vandalism. I also received a personal letter from his real e-address apologizing for his behavior. Then this third user came on and made claims that he was unwilling to back up. I asked, for example, to have him specify which of 5 "soapbox" problems might be involved and he never answered. I checked his page and saw that he has a bit of a history of questionable edits.

Now there's this BLP claim, that I've asked to discuss in a talk page while he ceases what has previously been identified as vandalism and he has gone to you, instead, unilaterally, and you in turn have not even communicated to me your precise objections before making a threat as judge, jury, and imminent executioner.

Please define "source" here and be specific which of any of the external links added applies. I note that I found your reference to alleged BLP violations on a page about Fordham University Press, which is certainly not a "Biography of a Living Person." So, this all seems peremptory, allergic to rational discussion as a prerequisite for action, arbitrary, and indicative of a blunderbuss approach that offers multiple vague objections instead of targeted exchanges, where the merits or demerits of each case are carefully weighed one by one.

I'm no expert on Wikipedia. I'm just someone who adds useful information or corrections where I have actual knowledge with regard to the entry in question.

Please stop making general threats and instead engage in rational discussion. I've shown my good faith and willingness to discuss. That is how the issue of the vandalism of Bruce Tucker was resolved satisfactorily for all parties without the removal of pertinent information. As I said, he eventually apologized to me for acting rashly and unilaterally.

You can discuss the matter with me here or you can contact me at curtis@msh-paris.fr to pursue the discussion. I remain open-minded and willing to learn. I hope that you will respond by comporting yourself in like fashion. Davidamescurtis (talk)davidamescurtis —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

Your edit is problematic for several reasons. The links you insert fail WP:EL, and their purpose seems to be mainly to further your personal dispute with Vincent Descombes. Per WP:BATTLE, it is forbidden to use Wikipedia for such purposes. More importantly, the link entitled "Open Letter to Vincent Descombes, President of the Association Cornelius Castoriadis, Who Fails to Honor His Word and Continues to Support Scab Labor" is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, a policy which states: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Should you repeat these or similar edits, I will indefinitely block your from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein  21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There would appear to be several misunderstandings on your part and you still fail to be specific. You instead are making assumptions. Take this phrase: "seems to be mainly to further your personal dispute with Vincent Descombes." I ask you again to take a look at the Bruce Tucker discussion page. He had the same wrong assumption that this was a "personal dispute" and as I said, he eventually wrote to apologize for his false assumption. May I suggest that we restore the material and then work through, step by step, what is at issue? These threats based on what merely "seems" to be the case are not the sort of rational discourse Wikipedia is supposed to be about. I'd be glad to work with you, either here, somewhere else on the site or via an e-mail exchange curtis@msh-paris.fr to sort out the difference between unfounded assumption and reality. How can you eliminate all links on the basis of your mistaken claims about one of them? And how can you say that this particular link is unsourced when it includes many links in it, including one from the translator herself who has acknowledged her wrong-doing? Moreover, you never responded to the point that the Fordham University Press entry is hardly a BLP; that's just an irrational mixing up of different things. Also, PLEASE stop the threatening tone. I was trying to work with the guy who's got the number for a name and he said this was soapboxing but never answered which of 5 points he was referring to. So, I was hardly just ignoring him and blithely ignoring WP policy. A calmer tone and less rash conclusions might be in order, don't you think? Otherwise, you expose yourself as someone not capable of point-by-point, rational discussion, but rather as someone flying off the handle. I remain open to a real, concrete, rational discussion without threats. Davidamescurtis (talk)davidamescurtis —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

I do not use e-mail. But okay, let's look more closely at the links you want to insert into the article Vincent Descombes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• [4] is a book catalogue entry about a book by one Cornelius Castoriadis. The book catalogue entry has nothing to do with Vincent Descombes and therefore has no place in his article, per our policy WP:ELNO (no. 13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article") and WP:ELBLP. But in the comments section, to which you want to draw our readers' attention, there is a long comment by you attacking Descombes and other people. It is therefore clear that you want to insert this link in order to give more exposure to your attacks on Descombes, in violation of our policies WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person".
• The same applies mutatis mutandis to the links [5] and [6], which are blogs or personal homepages or similar, edited by you, which again attack Descombes and others.

Inserting such links into the biography of a living person on Wikipedia constitutes disruption, which it is my job as an administrator to stop. Should you repeat this or similar disruption, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. These are the rules - if you do not like them, do not edit Wikipedia. This concludes our discussion.  Sandstein  13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add, in passing, that I have had absolutely no contact with Sandstein prior to the above thanks on this page (I definitely did not "go to him" as Curtis alleges). I was honestly thankful that an admin had finally noticed Curtis's bad faith edits and highly disingenuous rationalizations. The only "history of questionable edits" I have is that I have combated abusive editors like Curtis before. Thanks again.271828182 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry if I misunderstood about 271828182. I found him on the top of this discussion. 271828182 repeatedly refused to stop what had already been identified as someone else as vandalism, and refused to identify which "soapbox" violation I had committed. As for "bad faith" that was precisely Bruce Tucker's unfounded objection and he eventually apologized for it. So, let's not jump to conclusions or cut off discussion before all sides have a chance to respond.

Just take your last argument (4). That link is actually a libertarian website that has printed dozens upon dozens of texts by and about Castoriadis. I have never met the person who maintains this website. I have no control over it. Yet a public issue relating to the subject's public actions is raised there. So, I think that you are wrong about what you said, just to take that one example. So, since I have apologized about my misunderstanding concerning 271828182's post, would you be so kind as to recognize that (4) is not "edited by" me? That might be a good start to sorting out these issues calmly and rationally, without the sort of flaming of 271828182 ("bad faith edits and highly disingenuous rationalizations"). I'm working hard to provide relevant information within Wikipedia guidelines, and insults don't help anyone at all. Indeed, such flaming should give one pause and make one redouble one's efforts to keep an open mind and engage in rational discussion without hateful comments. Davidamescurtis (talk)davidamescurtis —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Oscar van Dillen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oscar van Dillen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar van Dillen (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA notifications

May they be given out and logged at the case page by involved editors who are not admins? nableezy - 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA does not appear to prohibit it. But it may not be a good idea nonetheless. Warnings by uninvolved editors are more likely to be taken seriously.  Sandstein  19:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual case makes no mention of it, but the standard message template ({{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}) specifically says that it is only valid if given by an admin and logged at the case page. But, as the prerequisite for sanctions is a warning logged at the case page, would a warning by an involved editor who is not an admin be sufficient for imposing sanctions? nableezy - 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions does not require warnings to be logged, nor does it mandate who may issue them. What templates say does not matter, only what the remedy says. But as an enforcing admin I would disregard warnings that are patently frivolous, overly aggressive or otherwise problematic, so involved editors should take especial care when formulating their warnings.  Sandstein  19:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks. nableezy - 19:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin

Hi, I'm all for blocking disruptive editors. While I might disagree with User:Mooretwin on occasion, I believe that the 3 month block is a little excessive. Perhaps a shorter block coupled with an extension of his restriction might be more productive. I believe Mooretwin was acting in good faith, and did not deliberately breach this restriction or try to circumvent it. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with HighKing and in fact go a step further . I asked Mooretwin to supply a other ref which he did, he may of used the undo button but he added a reference and as such it's a major stretch to call it a revert Gnevin (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinion about these concerns on the AE page. If Mooretwin disagrees with my sanction, he can appeal it, and if there is consensus against it, I have no problem with it being overturned.  Sandstein  05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, since it looks like there's administrative consensus at the AE thread, would you like to go ahead and change the settings on Mooretwin's block and probation? Or I can do it, but I figured I'd check with you first. Let me know, --Elonka 18:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did propose that you modify my sanction as you deem fit, so you may of course do what you please. I would prefer, however, that you do not characterize whatever action you decide to take as being based on consensus as established at AE, since (for the reasons I've stated there) I do not think that there is the requisite qualified consensus to overturn an enforcement action.  Sandstein  18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with you Sandstein a couple of sympathetic admins does not community consensus make, look forward to the same admins coming along for future blocks of other editors. BigDunc 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I'm really not seeing it as an "overturn" of your action, more as a "reduction based on discussion with Sandstein and other admins at AE". So if you handle the change, it would make it clear that you're okay with the modification. But if you want me to handle the paperwork (with the "reduction per discussion" wording) I can definitely do so. --Elonka 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do go ahead if you think that's what's necessary. I'm not okay with the modification, though. Not so much because I think the reduction has much of a practical impact with respect to preventing disruption - after all, Mooretwin can be easily reblocked if he continues reverting too much. Rather it's because I strongly dislike admins second-guessing, rather than supporting, each other in the area of arbitration enforcement. Arbitration (and its enforcement) is one aspect of the project that's not really subject to the consensus mechanism. If we treat it as though it were, the net effect is the weakening of the arbitration mechanism and the empowerment of the ethno-religious battleground editors that are normally the main focus of AE. I've expanded a bit on this on Rockpocket's talk page. For this reason, I consider it a collegial obligation to support and help enforce any AE action that can reasonably be supported by the wording and intent of the relevant remedy, even if I myself would have made a completely different decision. Such is the nature of administrative discretion. I believe that if all administrators were to adopt this approach, it would help substantially in reducing the general level of battleground-type disruption.  Sandstein  21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to this comment: Don't get me wrong, I don't think admins should support admins just because they are admins (there is, after all, no cabal; or at any rate there ought to be none). But I think that it is in the best interests of the project if admins (and other editors) observe professional deference towards the decisions of other admins in those special areas (notably AE, IMHO also BLP and blocks) where admins are delegated special authority and a relatively wide personal discretion. By deference I mean that one should not oppose an admin action just because one would have made a different decision oneself; rather, one should only (but ought to) voice opposition if the decision is indefensible and beyond the bounds of discretion; i.e., completely unsupported by the wording and intent of the applicable remedy or policy. If one makes the reasonable assumption that most admins will make correct (or at least defensible) decisions most of the time, then observing such deference will make Wikipedia administration on the whole much more effective and friction-free.

Of course, it also means that suboptimal outcomes will occasionally result; e.g. when (as possibly in the instant case) where the acting administrator acts substantially differently (say, much harsher or much more leniently) than most others would have done in his place; or that similar situations will be treated differently by different admins (what many perceive as "uneven" or "unfair" enforcement). But, as I said elsewhere, the benefits of fast and effective enforcement on the whole outweigh its defects. Also, there are safety valves, such as ArbCom or RfC, to correct truly bad decisions.

If you agree with this, I hope that you will respect what I believe to be a reasonable exercise of discretion in this case and not ask me to change my sanction.  Sandstein  23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, as you saw at the AE thread, my first impulse was to say that you had acted within the bounds of reasonable administrator discretion. However, in reviewing the comments of other administrators there, and without worrying about the exact details, wouldn't you at least agree that there appears to be a substantial consensus that a 3-month block was considered too long? --Elonka 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Among the handful of editors who participated in the AE discussion, yes. Clear, active and substantial community consensus, no.  Sandstein  08:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I would regard the discussion at AE as clear, active, and substantial community consensus. But I understand where you're coming from. I'll go ahead and make the change. --Elonka 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness Ban Violation

Sandstein, you have asked for the "Request for Enforcement" to be correctly formatted, which I spent a great deal of time doing... then what? Nefer Tweety (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have evaluated and closed the request.  Sandstein  14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you took all of 14 minutes to review all of the editors' comments, including all of the links, decide and close the case? Why do we waste our time, then? unfortunately, you are wrong. All 5 of SD's reverts are indeed his, and they are strike-outs of another user's edits, which means that they are reverts. And, there's no No. 6, are you sure you are looking in the right place? Please take another look. Nefer Tweety (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are six entries in the paragraph "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it". It is these that I refer to. Per WP:EW, "a revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Striking through the comments of others is not a revert under this definition, because it does not remove the comment; it just adds additional markup.  Sandstein  15:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

SD may have not edited the articles himself, but he did so through meat puppetry, which has been established. This is the point of the Enforecement request. Nefer Tweety (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The remedies do not prohibit him from proposing edits to others, just from making edits himself. While proxy editing for banned editors is prohibited, this one incident does not rise to the level of sanctionable meatpuppetry. Should this become a systematic practice, it would be more problematic.  Sandstein  17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It became a systematic problem when SD again did the same on Talk:Omar Sharif after having been caught and blocked on Talk:Asmahan. Additionally, I disagree that SD's edits of 31 Dec 2009 were not reverts. The strike-throughs were not simple markups, they were intended to erase those edits after their writer's account had just been blocked, hence the edits could not be restored. SD had previously had no interest in those articles whatsoever, so it was sheer harassment and stalking. I, too, do not think that you gave due process to that case, and we ask you to reconsider. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You may misunderstand what due process means. I have already expressed my opinion, but that does not prevent any of the 1,000+ admins on Wikipedia from taking enforcement action if they come to a different conclusion.  Sandstein  15:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. As such, please unprotect the case, so that the 1000+ admins can have a chance to review it and take other action if necessary. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The request is not protected, just closed. It has been visible long enough for admins to take action if necessary. You are free to file a new request, but be advised that repeatedly making meritless requests may be sanctioned as disruption.  Sandstein  10:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

I would just like to alert you that, since yesterday, the article has been the target of some rather persistent but dubious non-NPOV editing by single purpose account AnnaInDC (talk · contribs) in conjunction with 68.32.165.254 (talk · contribs), who I suspect to be the same user, logged-out. I have attempted to discuss on the talk pages why I believe the changes are not warranted (thus my rationale for making several reverts), but the arguments are not soundly based, IMHO. Obviously, I am immensely proud to have got the article to FA, and would hate to see it go to the dogs like the other Falun Gong articles, I suspect that the editor will persist if no action is taken. I do not wish to continue reverting for fear of breaching the article probation. Kindly take a look there. If you feel that the current action is as I describe, I would ask you to lock down the article temporarily. Kindly advise (I have posted an identical message on Vassyana's talk page, but I note there is a bug there which prevents it from being displayed). Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes for reference. --Asdfg12345 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I know too little about the subject and have too little time to analyze the exchange in depth and advise about who is right in this content dispute. You are right not to revert too much, of course; consider reporting to WP:ANEW in the case of persistent editwarring, or launch a WP:3O to get the opinion of others.  Sandstein  06:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked users removing declined unblocks

Re this edit: I thought that unblock requests from an expired block could be removed. Unless I was missing something there? Not that I think this user should be unblocked anytime soon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that. Actually the "unblock reviewed" template advises that it may not be removed while the editor is blocked, whether or not the block is still the same that the template refers to. But still, I guess that means that the block hasn't been reviewed on the merits. I'll remove the talkpage access block and restore the unblock request for others to evaluate, just to ensure procedural fairness.  Sandstein  06:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Monshuai

You should probably file an ArbCom case on that. So far I see only involved editors posting walls of text at ANI and supporting/opposing the ban. At least the arbitrators signed up for that, and the amount back and forth arguing is limited on ArbCom pages. Pcap ping 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel WP:AE might be a more appropriate place. There already is an Arbitration case covering behavior such as Monshuai's, WP:ARBMAC. If the ANI report loses steam, I would consider moving the whole thing (comments included) to WP:AE. Please advise. Athenean (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't file any ArbCom cases about this. Yes, AE is the appropriate venue, I think. I see a prima facie case for sanctions, and it's easier to cut down on the bickering by involved editors there.  Sandstein  22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will move it to AE then (the whole thing, including all comments so far). Btw, so far there's around 10 users supporting sanctions, and two against. When is a consensus considered to have been reached? Athenean (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, actually, so as not to overwhelm AE with the size of this thread, I recommend that you file a standard AE request ({{Sanction enforcement request}}) and include the permalink to the ANI discussion in lieu of evidence. That discussion can then be archived. AE needs no consensus, just one administrator who decides to act.  Sandstein  23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for telling me. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Athenean (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You should provide a permanent link: [7].  Sandstein  23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

While I was not following the ANI, a consensus there had developed, I think. It went from 4-3 to 7-3 (counting him too; a little hard to count in all those walls of text, so I could be off). You seem to want to impose sanctions on him. Did you just want a formal report at WP:AE before doing so? All that could be said in this matter was probably said already. Pcap ping 03:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that an admin could choose to apply discretionary sanctions based on the evidence that can be gleaned from the present ANI thread, without taking pains to judge the consensus there. If he did act, then his action would (I assume) be appealable at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pohta ce-am pohtit, please do not assume that I want to do anything. Had I wanted to impose sanctions on Monshuai, I would already have done so, per EdJohnston. But I have not yed had time to review the evidence, and either I or another admin may do so at more leisure in the calmer environment at AE.  Sandstein  06:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. (Based on your initial comment on ANI, I had the impression you had already made up your mind.) Pcap ping 08:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

About Je suis tres fatigue's block

The talk page access seems not to be restored. Please check it out.[8]--Arstriker (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.  Sandstein  16:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Investigation Regarding Balkan Country/History Articles

Hi Sandstein,

Where should a group of editors file a request for uninvolved administrators to form a task group that investigates the disparities in Balkan country/history article ledes? What is the official route to follow?

Also, since you are the person imposing sanctions I would like to know your answers to the cross-examination questions I posed in WP:AE before the proceeding were completed. Thanks.--Monshuai (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no process for task groups. The official dispute resolution process is described in WP:DR. There is also WP:CCN. However, if you participate in dispute resolution regarding the content of the Bulgaria article you will violate your topic ban.

I am not sure which questions you refer to. If there are any questions outstanding, please ask them again on this page.  Sandstein  06:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Accused AGAIN by the Greek editors

Hello Sandstein, After this unjust accusation that I got from Athenean at (User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich) and that Moreschi rejected, I am getting this other one from Alexikoua here (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarandioti). I have been harassed so many times by the Greek editors, it’s not even funny anymore. As an impartial admin could you please intervene? I am really upset and frustrated with their insistance to get me banned from Wikipedia. I am really being harassed by them. Thank you! Sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, let's wait until the WP:SPI concludes.  Sandstein  16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It concluded now, and I am released from this unbelievable false accusation, but they are not tired yet. Look at what they're doing now ([9]), [10], and [11]. Could I demand their public excuses after this? Sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You can demand, but you may not get what you demand. The SPIs, by itself, do not amount to sanctionable harrassment - yet. Should these accusations continue without substantial new evidence, then it would become harrassment.  Sandstein  08:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz's talk

I suggest you move it to a new archive, possibly leaving it blanked, but with undeleted history. Just leave a new talk page with his retirement message behind. He did not delete his other talk page archives, e.g. User talk:Spartaz/Archive9. Unitanode absolutely doesn't know when to stop. Pcap ping 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't undelete it again without wheel-warring. And I am not interested in Unitanode or whatever conflicts the two might be involved in. I am however interested in admins following deletion process.  Sandstein  09:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page DRV

For the record, I was not in any way involved with this admin. However, I was trying to reduce the drama they caused. Since they have now decided to protect their talk page, I totally agree that I should not have speedily closed that DRV, so I've reopened it. Your judgement on this matter was sound, so I give my apologies on this one. I did what I thought right on the DRV but I was wrong. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since Spartaz has now undeleted and unprotected the page, I'll retract the request.  Sandstein  13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping he would do :-) I'm glad to see he did it! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Stop challenging Spartaz about his management of his own talk page, or else you will be blocked by me for harassment. Is that crystal clear? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. I got the same dire warning on my talk page Sandstein. Evidently he wasn't following what was going on, and he's come into this ill-informed with a threatening message. Sheesh. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Jehochman) I have no intention to stop asking my fellow administrators to comply with the policies governing the use of administrator tools, including WP:PP, WP:DP and WP:WHEEL. I am glad that Spartaz has, in this instance, chosen to do so, and I bear him no ill will. You may want to reconsider this request because it can be reasonably interpreted as an attempt of harrassment on your part.  Sandstein  15:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so hard with a user who is obviously upset. Our goal is not to drive off users by way of robotic enforcement of the rules. Let him calm down. It's his user page. You had no business undeleting it and pressuring him. I don't even remember if Spartaz likes me or not; one thing I believe very strongly is that users need to be given a lot of leeway in managing their own talk pages. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You threatened to block both myself and Sandstein without knowing what was going on. Then you implied that Unitanode drove the admin away, when he did not. Have a good look at the way you dealt with this yourself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see users doing the equivalent of grave dancing. This is appalling. Leave Spartaz be. That's all you need to do. He's retired, and you can both just leave him alone. Do you want to argue about that, or can you accept it? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the last person to comment on that page was... well, it was you! You added a talk page message asking others not to harass the editor, but nobody actually did this. They only sent messages to him telling him to unprotect his talk page. Fully protecting and deleting his talk page was well outside of policy and a misuse of admin tools. He was about to get hauled before ArbCom. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec2) And you believe that the best way to convince fellow admins of your opinion about how best to deal with upset users is to threaten them with blocks if they do not follow that opinion? Sorry, but I am having a very hard time taking your opinion on this, or other matters, seriously after this.  Sandstein  15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you corner a user on their own talk page and hound them after they've departed, that crosses a line. Being an admin does not create any exemption. If you agree to leave the departed user be, then there is no issue. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He was being asked to unprotect and undelete his talk page. It is totally against policy to delete one's own talk page, and certainly fully protecting it is not allowed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec again) I have no issue with Spartaz retiring, deleting his userspace or blanking his talk page, and would not have bothered him if that had been all he'd done. But administrators, retired or not, upset or not, are at all times prohibited from using their administrative privileges in a manner contrary to policy. That is what Spartaz did by deleting and protecting his talk page, and then undoing my undeletion thereof. I fail to see how asking him to undo these mistakes is in any way objectionable. Jehochman, I consider your threat above to constitute harrassment, and will request arbitration against you if you continue to make, or follow through on, such threats against administrators acting in good faith.  Sandstein  15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noted the threat on ANI as a subthread of Unitanode's block. Honestly, I see that he's trying to help but by making a threat he's made things much, much worse by blundering in like he has. I think we can work this out without ArbCom though. I was personally offended and intimidated by the block threat. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the policy that forbids deleting one's own talk page? Are you familiar with the right to vanish which says talk pages are rarely deleted, and can be undeleted by community consensus? It doesn't say you can undelete the talk page by fiat. It says by community consensus. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Go read that guideline again. It says "Vanishing in this way is not a right. It is a courtesy extended by the Wikipedia community to make it easy for users to exercise their right to leave. Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy". During the course of the discussion, Unitanode had pointed out that Hipocrite left a note on the admin's talk page demanding that Unitanode be blocked. Hipocrite denied this. As the talk page was deleted, nobody except admins got to see the edit.

If Spartaz wanted to retire, there was no need for him to do the delete or protect the page. I note this is not the first time he's done this and later come back. I think you'd better be more careful before you comment in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The policy that forbids deleting one's own talk page is WP:RTV#How to leave, which states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion. In exceptional cases, where there is personal information you wish to have deleted without bringing attention to it by public discussion, you can use Requests for Oversight." Moreover, the deletion violated the policy WP:CSD, because no speedy deletion criterium was applicable to the talk page, and the second deletion also violated the policy WP:WHEEL, which states "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it", bold in original. I had assumed that you were familiar with these quite basic policies.  Sandstein  15:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are so fond of quoting policy, show me the one that says you can undelete a page out of process? What justified your undeletion? Why didn't you calmly raise the matter at WP:DRV and let that take it's course? What was the hellfire urgent need to undelete the page out of process. Your action was just as wrong as Spartaz's. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To prevent unneeded and continued drama and public exposure of the incident triggering the deletion (which I was not involved in). After the second deletion, I did raise the matter at DRV.  Sandstein  15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic dispute involving Tbsdy lives and Hipocrite, please take this elsewhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I denied nothing. Please stop accusing me of things that are false. I suggest you disengage from me - I have not been following you around, TBDY, but the inverse is certainly and obviously false. Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Whatever this is about, it does not seem to belong on my talk page.  Sandstein  15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC) This, I agree with. Jehochman Brrr 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I concur. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Above, TBSDY wrote " Unitanode had pointed out that Hipocrite left a note on the admin's talk page demanding that Unitanode be blocked. Hipocrite denied this." This is blatantly and maliciously false. I will correct him on any page on my watchlist where he continues to cast malicious aspersions about me, until TBSDY either disengages from me or is finally desysoped. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

10:08

Within the archived AfD discussion for 10:08 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/10:08, you mentioned that the content is available. I would like to make an attempt at creating a valid article for the topic, as it is a commonly asked question on the Wikipedia Reference Desks. It is also the first article I ever read on Wikipedia, so I have a sentimental attachment. Thus I am requesting the previously deleted content as a starting point for making a new article. Thank you. --LarryMac | Talk 22:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfied at User:LarryMac/10:08.  Sandstein  22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Asmahan Case

A request for ammending the Asmahan case has been filed by User: Nefer Tweety as it had been recommended in the Enforcement request that you had closed. Please take a look on the Ammendment page.

It seems that you have also closed a second Enforcement request filed by the same user on the same subject. While I agree that it seemed to have been a rushed filing on their part, I do not agree that the warning you gave them was justified. How would NT know if their case was actionable or otherwise without filing, especially given the fact that you had made no mention on this Talk page of the "per page" qualification in the remedy, when you defined the "revert" that would have been punishable? You too had missed that part in your definition, so why are you giving NT a warning just for filiing? User:Supreme Deliciousness has already filed numerous Enforcement requests based on the Asmahan case that have proven to be not actionable. Have you warned him for filing too? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in this case or its amendment, sorry. That's a matter for ArbCom. I don't see the point of your second question.  Sandstein  07:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare

Please take time to review this case, and this request. Brews sanctions have been relaxed several times, and enforcement was interpreted narrowly: if Brews mentions physics in his edits, he is out of line. So long as he doesn't, or does so only obliquely, he is ok. He is a professional physicist after all.Likebox (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which case and request?  Sandstein  14:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See here Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is for ArbCom to review, not for me. I am neither interested nor involved in that issue.  Sandstein  17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you recently made an enforcement decision regarding the case. I was just suggesting that the enforcement on Brews ohare was interpreting his topic ban slightly too broadly, given the previous decisions regarding the case, and considering the context of the enforcement request, it might be better to not take action at this time. Pay attention to the recent link offered by Count Iblis, it shows the Tznkai has relaxed the general ban to just apply to narrow physics, not this stuff. And sorry, that IP was me.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit does not show this, see my comment on the blocked user's talk page. Nothing of the above makes me reconsider my assessment of the enforcement request WP:AE#Brews ohare.  Sandstein  19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that reasonable people can have different opinions about this, but I ask you to try and find a second opinion, and to relax the action.

The reason is that I have recently brought up an ArbCom request to have Brews and Tombe unbanned (I did not know them or work with them before taking this step, except that I had some mild ordinary disputes with Brews in previous years). This ArbCom motion led to a fury of activity, and much administrative action directed at myself, and Brews felt the need to comment in my defense. The comments did not have anything to do with physics, and Tsnkai had narrowed the scope of the actionable ban considerably.

Please, discuss this matter with your peers, and see what they think. I hope you reconsider, but if not, good luck with everything, and no hard feelings.Likebox (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

These are, again, not meritorious arguments. In the cited diff of 19 January 2010, Tznkai says that "I intend to lift my supplemental ban after brief discussion at AE" (emphasis mine). This discussion does not appear to have taken place. Instead, the restriction remains logged at the case page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. As far as I can tell, therefore, Tznkai's discretionary sanctions remain in place unchanged. Even had they been lifted, the original topic ban would still have been violated for the reasons I noted on AE.

I am really not interested in why anybody in this dispute did anything. I'm just an administrator enforcing applicable arbitral sanctions in what I hope is an as impartial manner as is possible. If you think the underlying sanctions are wrong, you must appeal them to ArbCom, not to me.  Sandstein  19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent)Yes, yes, I understand the letter of the ruling, but you must not be so inflexible when applying Wikipedia's rules, or when enforcing decisions. There were previous decisions, such as whether adding a mathematical physics category to a mathematics article is OK, and it was decided that in this case yes it is Ok. There was a question about whether he could comment on administrative actions of various sorts and yes that was Ok. There was a motion passed unananimously which allowed him to discuss physics for the sake of diagrams on his page, and the consensus of current editors who followed what was going on is that no violation happened.

This is why I am asking you to reconsider--- not because you aren't right in some sense, but because you are not familiar with the case in all its details. That is not your fault, of course, but it leads to some friction, and there is no reason for that. Please try to be flexible on a case by case basis, and to follow consensus closely. But, anyway, really, reasonable people can disagree, and no hard feelings.Likebox (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Since you have involved yourself in the discussion over NSH001's comments at Talk:Carlos Latuff and issued him a warning about Arbcomm for soapboxing, perhaps you would like to issue a warning regarding this clear BLP violation on the ANI discussion board by Mbz1? Tiamut^talk 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure - where is the BLP violation in that edit?  Sandstein  22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I linked to wrong diff. Here it is. Tiamut^talk 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed problematic. I am inviting Mbz1 to comment on why that would not be a severe WP:BLP violation.  Sandstein  22:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights its working definition for antisemitism drawing comparison of the contemporary Israeli policy to that of the nazis is an example in which antisemitism manifests itself. latuff has many cartoons that are doing just that. his cartoon that won the second prize in the Holocaust denial cartoon conference in Iran is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. That's why I said what I said, about the man and I am not going to revert myself, even if I am blocked. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to article about latuff from conservapedia. As I said on AN/I I do understand that wikipedia is not censored, but I strongly believe that, if it is not censored to host hate propaganda antisemitic cartoons, the cartoons and their creator should be called with their real names. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, neither your original research nor Conservapedia is a reliable source for calling a living person "an anti-Semite and the Holocaust denier" on any page of Wikipedia. This is only allowed if it is backed up by multiple independent reliable sources. Moreover, your habit of referring to Carlos Latuff in small type leads me to believe that you are mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia. You are blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:BLP and also warned about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions in the event of continuing disruption.  Sandstein  00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, your decision about Mbz1 aside, I believe it is a problem that NSH001 was merely warned about his clearly inappropriate comments, which, rather than strike out, he reiterated on the same talk page. I do not believe that the gravity of making such comments was made clear to NSH001 with your decision. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't forget to log the warning. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Logged, thanks. The second comment was not as inflammatory by far and was made prior to my warning. Please use ANI or AE if there continue to be problems.  Sandstein  06:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice on arbitration amendment request

Please see here soon. I'm requesting an amendment to my case. --Asdfg12345 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Splurt

Hi, I am an artist with the name "Splurt" it is actually my registered Trademark, im just wondering, who, how, why, my wiki page was "redirected" to an old page named Z-MC. I am known worldwide as splurt, through 1,000,000 youtube views, iTunes, Record releases, and performances. Just wondering why it was changed.Splurtysplurt (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A link, please.  Sandstein  20:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Info that might be helpful is here. —Soap— 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splurt to move your article to that title.  Sandstein  08:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tackling the Bureaucratic Mindset

Hi Sandstein, As I understand it Tzntai has resigned from wikipedia following a dispute. You can read his resignation letter here [12]. This now calls into question the whole validity of Tzntai's supplemental bans that were instigated against both Brews ohare and myself. When Tzntai instigated his supplemental ban on me in October 2009, I let him know at the time that I considered it to be based on a totally dishonest interpretation of the facts. It seems now that Tzntai has eventually seen the light. He stated his intention clearly to lift the supplemental ban in the case of Brews ohare, but as it is now clear that he was very busy around that time with other matters that would lead to his resignation, he never got around to making the final log of the repeal.

The only administrator who ever voiced support for Tzntai's supplemenatl ban was AGK. AGK is now over at Brews ohare's talk page voicing support for your blocking of Brews. I left him a message in relation to Victor Hugo's fictional character Javert. You may wish to take a look [13]. David Tombe (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any retirement by Tznkai does not invalidate his sanctions. These remain in force until lifted by him or the Arbitration Committee. If you continue wikilawyering about this, you may be made subject to additional sanctions under your general probation.  Sandstein  06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, Please remember to assume good faith. There was absolutely no call whatsoever for your threat to instigate administrative sanctions. David Tombe (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

David, I did not voice support for Sandstein's block. In actuality, at present, I am undecided on the merits of the block. I simply see some critical flaws in the reasoning of Brews' unblock request that I would like to see addressed. AGK 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, OK, I've read your comments again and I see that you didn't support Sandstein's blocking of Brews. I apologize for misreading your statement. You did however seem somewhat reluctant to reverse the situation. I sincerely hope that you pay heed to my remarks about Inspector Javert. That guy sold his soul to the letter of the law, and when he realized the error of his ways, he couldn't cope with the conflicts going on within his head, and he drowned himself in the River Seine. Victor Hugo's point was that there is a higher natural justice that supersedes man made rules and regulations. Javert sincerely believed that he was doing good by sticking to the letter of the law, but in actual fact he was inadvertently doing evil on many occasions. If one choses to get involved in a situation to the detriment of somebody else, one must always look at the higher picture. It is wrong to do damage to somebody and hide behind a small part of the overall picture. David Tombe (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have to worry about fishing me out of the Clyde. But I think enforcing a topic ban rigidly is more than blind bureaucracy. Those who are topic banned need to respect the will of their fellow editors; and if that will means that they have to stay away from one topic or another, then they should do so—in every way. AGK 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, You mention the will of Brews's fellow editors. Are you talking about Headbomb's will, or are you talking about the seven editors at the recent appeal who expressed a desire to see Brews's topic ban totally lifted, and the remainder of the editors who expressed the desire to see the topic ban relaxed? As regards the ARBCOM case itself, and the recent appeal, I think that you need to open up your eyes a bit more. David Tombe (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

David, you seem to forget the seventy or so editors at the recent appeal who did not express their desire to see Brews's topic ban kept as is, because they all knew what the outcome was going to be. You see, some contributors love drama, but I'm sure that most just shy away from it. This is called bias. DVdm (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And actually AGK, I've just realized that you have deceived me with your comments above and that I fell for it. What am I talking about above? Brews didn't even breach his topic ban. Your comments lured me into a state of mind in which it was assumed that Brews had in fact breached his topic ban. David Tombe (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When I last checked, I was not in the game of deceit. Perhaps my opinion is incorrect. If so, fine; then say so. But do not get into the game of thinking that it is acceptable to imply that another editor is actively, maliciously spreading falsities. AGK 15:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfair block , ungrounded statements

1. You made an absolutely ungrounded statement, when you said to me: "you are mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia. ". I have proven beyond the reasonable doubt that you were dead wrong on that . On the other hand latuff was brought “here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia”, which he is successfully achieving with the help of some users and activists administrators as yourself.
2. I’ve provided few reliable sources (such as working definition for antisemitism, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Robert S. Wistrich) to prove my point. You have chosen to ignore each and every one of them, and called them “original research”
3. Please allow me to provide only one quote by latuff for your enjoyment: “And of course people are allowed to make funny cartoons on Jews being gassed”. Please notice not even Israelis, just Jews.
4. I am not going to touch anything connected to latuff ever again, but not because I was not right in my assessment of the man,but because there's way too much [....] around latuff,and the more one touches that [....] the more it stinks.I would not be surprised, if you are to block me again,but may I please ask you to notice that now, after my above statement of stopping editing the article,the block would be a punitive sanction?

Conclusion: The block was unfair, the statement about my contributions was ungrounded and offensive.

You abused your administrative tools.Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please take the advice by Elen of the Roads. You are free to hold the personal opinion that the work of this cartoonist is antisemitic, and after a look at his work, I see why reasonable people can hold this opinion. But: Per WP:BLP, you are not allowed on Wikipedia to call somebody an antisemite and a holocaust denier unless accompanied by a reference to a reliable source that describes this exact person in these exact terms. No ifs and buts.  Sandstein  09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. How come you did not block me for writing his name in small letters? I am not sure you could see why " why reasonable people can hold this opinion". You did not loose relatives in the Holocaust as I did, the relatives that I have never known because I was born much after the war. Your father did not tell you the stories how he was captured by nazis 2 times in a row, and what he experienced before he was able to run away. Your mother did not tell you a story about her sister, who committed suicide, when she knew she could not get away from nazis.
In your response you did not address the number 1 - your ungrounded statement about my own contributions.
Elen of the Roads said: "On that basis, I would support a call for your unblock".
Two quotes from Wikipedia article: "In 2002 the Swiss-based Holocaust survivors organization Aktion Kinder des Holocaust sued the Indymedia of Switzerland on the charge of anti-Semitism for publishing Latuff's cartoon titled We are all Palestinians series in their website, which depicted a Jewish boy in Warsaw Ghetto saying: "I am Palestinian."" and In their 2003 Annual Report, the Stephen Roth Institute compared Latuff's work to "the antisemitic caricatures of Philip Ruprecht in Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer." The article has Antisemitism category. Anyway we're talking different languages.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, thanks for your message on my talk page. I am going to remove it not because of what you have written (you are welcome to post a message at my talk page at any time, even it the message is a block notification :) ), but because I would not like to have the link to latuff article on my talk page. My opinion did not change. The thing is that to me WP:BLP do not apply to anti-Semites because anti-Semites cannot be considered persons, they are just that... well, just anti-Semites. I still believe that I have provided enough reliable sources to support my statements. I understand that you might have a different opinion, and I will understand, if after this message, you will block me or topic ban me. I understand you are obligated to do so by Wikipedia policies. I will accept the punishment with no complains, and, if for nothing else, my block will make Tiamut happy :) She has already tried to make me blocked once before, when she claimed I was a sock, and never retracted her accusations even after Nableezy told her that he "near 100% sure" I am not a sock. Few days ago she succeed in her second attempt to have me blocked :) Oh, well... Anyway... I will never change my opinion, I will not retract any statements I have made on the subject, and I am not going to touch the article ever again because as I explained earlier it stinks way too much. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you being blocked does not make me happy. I thought you had forgiven me for thinking you were a sock earlier. You apologized and I apologized, remember? Its all on my talk page. Anyway, it seems you want to be a wiki martyr, since you believe your opinion is more important than our policies. That's your perogative, but I derive no joy from it. Tiamut^talk 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A martyr? Nope,it is not about me. I do not believe in 72 virgins awaiting for me in the paradise, you know. Everything is much simpler. As Albert Einstein said “Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it”. I will never do anything against my conscience even, Wikipedia policies demand it, and besides, IMO any Wikipedia policy should be satisfied by that source: the [....] is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sensitivity to anti-Semitism notwithstanding, an anti-Islamic allusion when talking to your Semitic sister is par for the course. No worries Mbz1, I remember what we have in common. I'm singing it in my head right now: "I could have danced all night, I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more ..." Tiamut^talk 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I am afraid that once again you've got me wrong, and your accusation in "anti-Islamic allusion" has no ground whatsoever. You were talking about martyrs.In Houri, which is Islam, 72 virgins have nothing to do with martyrs. 72 virgins tale that is used to recruit homicide bombers is used by radical Islam. I have nothing against Islam - the religion of peace. I am very much against the radical Islam the religion of homicide bombers. Any problem with that? The song is good. That musical makes me feel better always. Too bad that most Muslim women, who live in Islam countries will never watch it --Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note

Heyo Sandstein,

There's an ANI post that you should be aware of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_by_User:Nableezy

Also, I had my own NPA run in with the same user on the same day.

• (original) - [14],
• (resubmit) - [15],
  • - "And you would have long since been banned." - Feb 26, 2010

With respect, Jaakobou

Brews ohare

Could you please comment on the issues that have been raised at User talk:Brews ohare in relation to your recent block? Also note, if you haven't already saw: an unblock request has been filed and is pending. Thanks, AGK 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did comment on the unblock request; Brews ohare then removed my comment.  Sandstein  08:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not think to check the history (not expecting him to be so petty). AGK 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I was just wondering, why did you delete the page about the Black Rock Shooter character? I really wanted to know more about her, as I don't quite understand the storyline from all the Anime trailers. So could you please put it back? Thank you :)

Teh Wiki Person (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A link, please.  Sandstein  08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Black_Rock_Shooter Thank you ^_^

Teh Wiki Person (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The page was deleted because there was consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Rock Shooter. To restore it you would need to show how it meets our inclusion guideline WP:N. Please see also WP:WWMPD.  Sandstein  21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh...thanks...although I would like it to be added in April. ^^ I'll show you later, though. Thank you for answering! ^^ Teh Wiki Person (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani Discussion

[[16]] to Review Brews Block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you revert this; if the comment was a few hours late, I'd agree with your action, but barely a few minutes doesn't justify that in any noticeboard discussion. I hope you will see why it's reasonable to make the exception. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all right, done. It doesn't really matter, but every discussion has to stop at some point after a decision has been made.  Sandstein  08:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Silly bickering, now archived

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.

Will you both please stop the bickering? If there is anything warranting admin action, please make a properly formatted report with well-explained diffs (I can't read minds! Don't just write "here", tell me where!) at WP:ANI or WP:AE, else let it be. Thanks.  Sandstein  21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Unfair Warning to Nefer Tweety

Sandstein: why did you give a warning to User:Nefer Tweety for filing an Enforcement request here? How is NT supposed to know that a request will be non-actionable before they even file it? Why haven't you done the same with User:Supreme Deliciousness who has filed at least two non-actionble Enforcement requests here and here (there are probably many others) against NT, also on the same case? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

?

Hey, has Arab Cowboy violated his topic ban here?

He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [17] "If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked."

Omar Sharif is a part of the scope of the case as can be seen in its history and also has been mentioned in the arbitration case:[18] [19][20]

Omar Sharif discussion continued from its talkpage to the BLP noticeboard, so isn't that also an associated page? AC made several posts there in the Omar Sharif discussion: [21][22][23] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 25 February 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.

State of Palestine dispute now at WP:AN3

Hello Sandstein. This article is now the subject of a report at report at AN3. Any admin who wishes to can go ahead and close this, but I had the idea of imposing six months of full protection. This would allow changes to the article to be made by consensus, using the {{editprotected}} template. I'd be interested to know if you would consider this a good solution.

The benefit is that an administrator would be in the loop for judging consensus. The current report suggests that participants are doing a poor job of judging consensus on their own. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the dispute, but off the cuff I would not recommend this solution as long as the problem is a few editors edit-warring. That's because the full protection hinders other editors from improving the article. I find it preferable to block the edit-warriors instead. In this case WP:ARBPIA revert restrictions may also help.  Sandstein  19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your preliminary conclusion at WP:AE

Sandstein, I urge you to reconsider this. I will be filing a request for clarification so that the ambiguity cannot cause further disruption, either way. Please consider that the situation I came across, as an editor involved with TurnKey Linux, was resulting in considerable disruption, based on the abuse of Wikipedia process for the purpose of harassing an editor, which is amply established in the evidence provided on AN/I, and the subsequent comment about the off-wiki action that preceded the actual harassment. The actual content issues were not emergencies, with the possible exception of the license, and all of the legitimate issues could be and are being handled through routine process, and my intervention was originally as an involved editor, making allowed edits, not prohibited under my sanction, seeking to encourage discussion, and warning both editors against using revert warring to enforce preferred content. All this was allowed, there has been no dispute about that so far. What was edgier, to be sure, was responding to the AN/I report filed by SamJohnston. However, this, I can and will argue if necessary, was required by immediate concern for the welfare of the project, and was originally designed just to encourage the editors to chill.

Then I discovered what I had merely suspected before, proof that this all was, in fact, planned harassment because of failure of LirazSiri to comply with off-wiki coercion over a relatively minor content dispute. Please look at the evidence!

Meanwhile, if you are concerned about a possibility that "my disruption" will continue, please consider issuing a temporary injuction, pending review by ArbComm, that clarifies the exact meaning of my sanction. Generally, the sanction has been presented as an "MYOB" sanction, intended to prevent me from intervening in disputes where I was not involved, and that was the apparent meaning of "originating party." It wasn't a reference to technicalities, but to substance. Yet it has been interpreted as a pure technicality, ignoring substance. ArbComm has previously been requested to clarify this, but did not choose to address it. They should, don't you agree? --Abd (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I await input by other admins before deciding how to proceed. If I determine that a request for clarification is required, I will make it. In the interim, please do not continue the current dispute in any venue before the request for arbitration enforcement is resolved. Please also link to the previous request for clarification that you refer to.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have, as promised, filed the request for clarification. I will accept your notice here as sufficient to prohibit me from further comment, outside of ArbComm pages, on this case, pending resolution of the AE request. I've already done what was needed, I believe, but one question: may I participate in discussions or editing of TurnKey Linux at the article or Talk page, pursuing article content issues, not behavioral discussion? I assure you that minimum disruption is my goal, always, consistent with the necessities of policy. I will provide you with links as requested, later.

• Please note that the request for clarification names you as a party, but this is not a challenge of any action you have taken, and the request is intended purely for clarification, for your guidance and mine. Thanks for your patience. --Abd (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no authority to issue injunctions but ask you to not do anything at all that is remotely related to the present dispute, including engaging in content discussions, until the AE request is resolved.  Sandstein  21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you have the authority to block me for violation of a sanction, you have the authority to, in lieu of block, specifically prohibit me from specified behavior that you define as violating the sanction. You have done this, and you have clarified that this includes (related) content discussions. That's an "injunction" as I was using the term. Arbitration enforcement requires this kind of discretionary sanction, I assume and have seen. I will be careful.

I do understand, however, that I may comment on ArbComm pages: the AE request and the RfAr/Clarification filed. And thanks for supporting that request. --Abd (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Zachary Jaydon or Jaydon Paull

My name is Jaydon Paull and I live in Colorado. I am 27, married with two kids. I am not an actor, singer or a child TV star and have no talents as a musician, yet I am questioned constantly about being a Zachary Jaydon and have even almost lost an employment opportunity because of information on this site and others linking me to someone with the same or similar name. I am unsure about how all of this works, but can the discussion pages be deleted now that this persons page has been removed? When you search my name in google, this "Article For Deletion" page comes up; 3 of them actually. From what I understand, the "Salt" part of the verdict makes it impossible for the page in question to be recreated, so are those pages still relevant or necessary years later? It's causing me some serious problems. Thank you for understanding. I'm sorry I don't understand how to sign my comments here. It took me forever to figure out how to get this far in talking to you. I'm still confused on if these two are one person or two, imaginary or real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.60 (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw this, and felt compelled to comment. Zachary Jaydon is also known as "Jaydon D. Paull". If you google for Jaydon Paull, the article for deletion page does not come up. I believe it is noindexed automatically, anyway. If you google for Zachary Jaydon, the deletion pages from Simple Wikipedia do come up, but ours do not. Most of what comes up in either search are the numerous fraudulent resumes and biographies that Zachary Jaydon has put up. Once we salted his pages, he got into the habit of using other wikis to spread the word. I've put his page up for deletion at Simple twice. He created them in places as strange as a a wiki devoted to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. He has created his own damn Wikia, devoted to spamming himself. If the anon is real, I feel for him, because having the same name as an aggressively spamming con-man can't be much fun. Even so, I can't see an advantage to even courtesy blanking, much less deletion, because the pages from English Wiki aren't coming up on Google.—Kww(talk) 05:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The coincidence of the timing of this request and this little shitstorm also makes me a bit suspicious.—Kww(talk) 05:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaydon Paull, I do not see any Wikipedia results in the top Google page for that name or for "Zachary Jaydon". It's unclear what you expect me to do and why. Please tell me what specific page you are talking about and what you want me to do with it.  Sandstein  19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are three links of the pages I'd like removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon_(3rd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon

I am still confused on the correlation between these two people and it's frustrating to share an even partial name with this person/people. There are other sites on the Internet that reference the arguments here and it has been spread around my office, at one point almost costing me my job. I've been harassed by coworkers and my wife has been questioned about her husbands integrity because of things online about someone unrelated. All of the "facts" seem to link back to this years old discussion on Zachary Jaydon/Jaydon Paull and to be honest, from reading it I can't tell if they are one or to people real or created by someone or several someones. All I know is that if the outcome of the debate/argument etc has been decided, can the pages be removed to save me the hassle of having my name dragged through the murk? It's not encyclopedic in any way and seems to serve no constructive purpose at this point. I apologize for my earlier confusion about google. It was another wikipedia site. I thought hey were all the same. That one links to this one though and then other sites are pulling information from here as well. This seems to be the root of the problem. Thanks for understanding. Maybe I'm just being selfish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.75 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Trusilver has reversed your block on Brews ohare. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed, thanks.  Sandstein  19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)