User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/January

Nice going

Good timely add of a pic of the shoe! Nice going. Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To you as well!  Sandstein  13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2010

E gud's neus :-) Beschti Grüß ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you as well!  Sandstein  20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: ANI

I'm so sorry about that, not sure how that happened (well, edit-conflict, but still...) – I'd have had no objection to you replacing it yourself, of course!! ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Acharya S

I notice you userfied Acharya S some time ago; the article returned to the main namespace under a different name, was moved, and is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). I have been involved closely with this matter in the past. Since partisan editors are attracted to the topic, I'd be grateful for some administrative help with it. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How can I help? I closed a previous AfD, but I have no recollection or knowledge of the topic as such.  Sandstein  18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah - the topic is a pseudonym of a writer on religious topics, and we have an "issue" with the recreated article: is it or is it not a biography? It was recreated under the title writings of D.M. Murdock; but was then moved to its present title. This author has released only a very small amount of biographical information to the public, so that considered as a "biography of a living person" it is almost impossible to verify facts. On the other hand we cannot decide on an adequate title. The article will probably survive AfD now, so the question is what is the best way to treat it in future. I have been having discussions with at least two editors involved in the recreation (one being User:Jclemens who had the version in userspace. There is an argument being put forward that I don't really understand or accept about the inclusion of biographical facts (almost all self-published) in the article. I was closely concerned with the ArbCom case centred on the article, ending in 2006, where the original poster User:ZAROVE was restricted from editing on the topic. To give the short version of the problem, this article was created as an attack page; my main concern is that it should not return to this status, but under the present title it would need to be watched constantly. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, but I do not think that I would be suitable for watching it at the content level, since I have no knowledge of and no interest in the author or what seems to be her subject matter, Christ myth theory. But if you need an uninvolved admin to do admin stuff, such as in cases of BLP violations, I am of course available.  Sandstein  19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

nableezy

Sandstein, don't you think this has gone far enough? At this point, it's beginning to look as though you have a vendetta against nableezy. Please uninvolve yourself from further interactions with him. An uninvolved administrator should handle any future violations. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I concurr with Malik Shabazz. The Arbcom decision refers to "any uninvolved administrator" ([1]). By your last action you clearly discredited you as potentially uninvolved. I suggest you take distance with user:Nableezy. If he really infringes Arbcom decision, other administrators will have the opportunity to handle the case before the encyclopaedia is in danger. Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to uninvolve myself from anything. Taking administrative actions with respect to users (in this case, responding to an AE request and then enforcing it with a brief block) does not constitute a conflict that would prevent me from taking subsequent administrative actions. See WP:UNINVOLVED for more information.  Sandstein  21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I read WP:UNINVOLVED. "[A]n administrator may wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as 'best practice' in some cases, although they are not required to. Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will 'stick', in certain exceptional cases." "[I]f there is doubt, or a personal motive may be substantively alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible." As I wrote, this matter has started to look personal. Please recuse yourself from the situation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not wish to. What personal motive of mine do you allege, and for which reason? Do I have any previous conflicts with Nableezy (I can't recall any)? You are of course free to disagree with my administrative actions (that's why we have appeal processes for them, as I keep reminding everybody) but so far all I have heard are unfounded assumptions of bad faith, which I am not inclined to take seriously.  Sandstein  21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What a way to start the New Year!

Dear Sandstein,

First of all, happy New Year. I hope its a good one for you. The reason I am writing though is because I'm rather shocked at your reimposition of a two month topic ban on Nableezy on this, the first day of the new year, just a couple of days after his last topic ban ended. I don't think his edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD (over a month ago) deserve to be held against him now. And as you said yourself in your closing of the other complaint against him, there was nothing actionable in that complaint. Therefore, your decision comes off as rather punitive. Would you care to revisit? Or should I file a request for review somewhere? Can you direct me to where that can be done? Thank you. Tiamut^talk 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and happy new year to you too. I do think Nableezy's repeated violation of the topic ban, even though it happened about a month ago, requires a restart of the ban, because he violated the topic ban in exactly the confrontative manner the ban was intended to prevent, i.e., by editwarring to reinsert the AfD comments of other banned editors (which also violated the policy prohibiting editing on behalf of banned users). Although the sanction was imposed relatively late (I was away from AE until today), the enforcement request was made in a timely manner. My closing of another complaint as not actionable has no bearing on the closure of the unrelated complaint at issue here. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider the sanction; it may be appealed as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  20:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the New Year's wishes. I must disagree, however, with your assessment, which I believe fails to assume good faith. To Nableezy, the Jonathan Cook article was not clearly covered by the topic ban, which is the reason he was restoring those other editors' comments. Furthermore, his edits to restore the comments removed were in line the guidelines outlined at WP:TALK (i.e. that editors should generally avoid removing or altering the comments of other editors) and came one day before the end of his the expiration of his talk page ban. Two separate requests were opened, prior to the AE request that you closed, suggesting that his actions be reviewed. They were, and no action was taken by the admins who commented on those other requests. The idea that a third request could be filed on the same issue and one month later be closed with a renewal of his topic ban seem patently unfair (triple jeopardy?), and I said above, punitive.

It is very disheartening actually, and not the way I would liked to welcome the new year myself. But you are free to your opinion and free not to respond further. I will take it up where you suggested when I calm down a bit. Tiamut^talk 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did. Since nobody linked to these previous AE requests that you mention during the whole long time the request was open, I could not (and still cannot) take them into account. In any case, double jeopardy is a legal concept inapplicable to arbitration enforcement, which is not a legal proceeding.  Sandstein  21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you want a diff for AGK saying that AfD were to be treated as talk pages (from which I was banned for 1 month) here you go. Also, if you want to see the AE thread where my actions at the AfD were addressed, here you go. This topic ban is wholly without basis and I hope you reverse your decision. You also could have asked for the diffs before making a decision based on limited information. nableezy - 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody is omniscient, all human decisions are based on limited information. But as the editor subject to a AE request, it is your own responsability to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner. At any rate, the new evidence does not cause me to change my conclusion. Since enforcing admins act independently from one another, the previous thread in which Tznkai declined enforcement (but did not find that the complaint was unfounded) does not prevent me from coming to a different conclusion. Even assuming arguendo that the ban as applicable to AfDs ended one month after 21:02, 29 October 2009, at least your edits [2] and [3] were made prior to 21:02, 29 November 2009 and thus in violation of the ban.  Sandstein  21:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are imposing a two-month topic ban for those two edits which took place over a month ago and were already adjudicated as harmless by another admin. Your decision is more disruptive to Wikipedia than the alleged offense. Its stopped me from improving articles for the last couple of hours and it will stop Nableey from improving articles over the next two months. I don't know what your problem is Sandstein, but I think you should take a good long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if this is in Wikipedia's best interest, or your own. Tiamut^talk 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted edits that I felt constituted vandalism and asked the users to go to AE with their complaints about Nick and Nishi instead of attempting to enforce arbitration decisions on their own. If you feel that is ban worthy so be it, but please indefinitely block my account right now (though turn off the autoblock, I have a shared ip at work). If you decline to block my account I will sue you all, (that line should give you reason for an indef block, NLT). nableezy - 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We do not block people on their own request. I have provided you with instructions about how to appeal the sanction if you believe it was wrong.  Sandstein  22:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to "appeal" the sanction, I want you to realize how ridicolous it is. And you are not blocking me on my own request, you would be blocking me for making a legal threat. But your life, Im outta here. nableezy - 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You write:

'he violated the topic ban in exactly the confrontative manner the ban was intended to prevent, i.e., by editwarring to reinsert the AfD comments of other banned editors (which also violated the policy prohibiting editing on behalf of banned users).'

Look I don't care whether this violates my permaban or not. I can't allow an outright fiction like this to pass unchallenged. The link tells us that

'Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying",'

I made an intemperate post, and a follow up within a few minutes,and am willing to pay the penalty for it. It has been discussed, and I violated my permaban, as I admitted and apologized. A tremendous infraction of one lapse of judgement into 7 months of my permaban. But in reverting Gilabrand's erasure of my remark Nableezy in no way 'edited on my behalf' or 'at my direction'. You may not believe me, but I wished to erase the remark myself, but did not do so because, out of pure fucking scruple, I thought to do so would be seen, rightly so, as an attempt to erase the evidence for my own culpable behaviour. I know administering this place is like cleaning up in a lunatic asylum, and there's far too much for any one caretaker to look to, but Nableezy has never, never edited at my direction, and to insinuate this on the public record, with the authority invested in you, and with the reputation you have earned attached, means that, through my own oversight, Nableezy is now suspected of meatkpuppetry. Worse still, you saying this suggests to other eyes that one motive for your action was that you considered he acted as my (ugh!) 'meatpuppet'. I bitterly protest this, not only for Nableezy, but for myself. I may be whatever Arbcom or straying administrators think I am, but I have never used these tactics, as opposed to so many of those handles that have taken me, Nableezy, and many others to arbitration, and got their way.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that Nableezy edited at your direction, or that you are to blame for his edits. Sorry if it came across that way. But his re-insertion of your comments had the effect of circumventing your topic ban, which is disruptive.  Sandstein  22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Sandstein, the disruption was by those editors who tried to remove the comments, instead of taking it to AE. Nableezy did the right thing, although he was technically in breach of his talk-page ban (by less than 24hrs). That does not merit the re-imposition of a full two-month topic ban (maybe a short nominal block at most). Your misjudgement here looks like it may have cost Wikipedia the services of a first-rate editor. --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether any other editors also acted disruptively has no bearing on my assessment of Nableezy's actions. Everybody is judged only on their own merits. A block in this situation would have been punitive, but it is my judgment that a topic ban is much better suited for preventing continued similar disruption. If Nableezy retires from editing Wikipedia instead of appealing my sanction, that is regrettable, but it is his own decision.  Sandstein  22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep talking as if Nableezy was being "disruptive", or is likely to "continue disruption". Just examine Nableezy's contribution history. He's careful, accurate, adheres closely to sources, and is bloody good at formatting articles. Look at the articles he's created or contributed to (Franz Baermann Steiner, Al-Azhar Mosque to take just two I'm familiar with). Can you not see what an outrageous, monstrous injustice this is? He made a minor, technical, infraction of the rules, that's all. Why the hell should anyone put up with being banned for doing the right thing? I strongly suggest you examine the evidence carefully, and think again. --NSH001 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The disruption lies in violating an arbitration-authorized topic ban (itself imposed for disruption) to edit war. I am sure he has many merits as an editor, and he is certainly not only disruptive, but that is not relevant in arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A fatuous argument. The whole point is that this is a trivial, technical breach of the rules, nothing more. Goodnight --NSH001 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an open invitation for serious editors to be seriously disruptive, by mirroring the behaviour of the endless number of people who are more interesting in scrutinizing the minutiae of people they take to be their adversaries, in order to catch them out, and haul them before arbitration. I've always argued that one should never go to arbitration over etiquette, trivia, or even serious suspicions about sockpuppetry, but stand one's ground and argue. It's evil, and unmanly, and is screwing up a lot of potential good editing. I see that of several people I advised to take that stance, most have been driven off wiki, because they won't retaliate, and because arbitrators keep thinking that trivial lapses are serious evidence of 'troublesome' behaviour. Some of the most quarrelsome plaintiffs and cumbersomely POV weighted editors are still thriving. No one complains about them, or if they do, the complaints are just closed from tedium. You have a clear conscience, but the systemic bias is now patent. Nableezy, for the record, spent a considerable amount of time trying to needle me back to wikipedia, and his insistence, via throwing my way huge amounts of material I'd always desired to read but couldn't access via the net, eventually enticed me to go beyond the banned I/P area where I think my useful competence lies, to write up neglected areas where I once used to know quite a lot, on anthropology, for example. That's not on the record, but it showed how hard he worked to rope back someone who was disenchanted with the extraordinary arbitrariness of wiki's legal system, where you survive only if you spend more time wikilawyering than on studying up for article drafting. He asked for nothing in return, and in our exchanges there was little of a personal or political nature. You've lost him, and incidentally if inadvertently, made a wonderful new year for those who went for his jugular from woe to go. You say he may wriggle back if he begins to adopt the legalistic niggling, plaintiff mentality on which his adversaries thrive, and which serious editors deplore. Sandstein, there is such a thing as discretionary judgement, and commonsense. You have no read the drift. Or have you, and gone ahead regardless. Remember, your sanction against me 3 years ago was correct on 3 RR when I began. But the people who pushed for action were destructive sockpuppets, meatpuppets and tagteamers, all banned or disappeared. And I have to wear that on my page, while the fact that I edited for the good of the encyclopedia against a covey of disruptive warriors is lost from view. You did the right thing technically, but the result was I had to sit out a punishment for trying to keep reliable sources from being erased by two POV-warriors. In your view, rather than editing, I should have joined in the tactical battle, and gone for Zeq, and his allies. Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is WP:TLDR. Could you be briefer?  Sandstein  23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I suggest you take the time to read this properly (it's not that difficult). You might learn something. And I suggest you devote a similar level of care and attention to reviewing the evidence carefully in this case. --NSH001 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No. But I do commend, and hope you will entertain the suggestion, a reading of Billy Budd within the year. It is far longer than my post, but makes my point more succinctly. I think it should be required reading for anyone who exercises administrative functions and who thinks with Goethe that duty is just the demands of the day (No doubt you too have it by mermory, but just in case: Was aber ist deine Pflicht? Die Forderung des Tages). With that, I too must now join my friend in permanent retirement from the extra I/P area as well. Nishidani (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would probably violate your own restriction in continuing this discussion.  Sandstein  00:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disgusted

I am disgusted by your blatant bias. I suggest you read Lord Acton's dictum, and apply the lessons to yourself, and to Wikipedia's farcical "justice" system that succeeds in driving away the very best editors. --NSH001 (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As with everyone else who's comented above. This issue - which involved the restoration of controversially deleted comments (yes, including some from me it would seem) from an AfD page - was the subject of multiple threads, where enforcement was declined, and you take it upon yourself to turn up two weeks later out of the blue to impose a ban? At the same time as demanding that the individual in question has to provide the evidence to show that there was no breach? No pal, if you want to impose draconian sanctions on people, it's up to you to demonstrate a substantive breach of any prior sanctions, rather than taking an accusation as read, and implicitly accusing Nableezy of lying when he asserted AfDs were excluded from his ban by demanding he show diffs, as you did initially. Look at the sanctions log, you bleated. I did. It specifically notes the amendment to exclude talk pages, which was, as Nableezy says, clarified as including AfD pages. --Nickhh (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What does "bleated" mean?  Sandstein  18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, FYI: "bleated" is the past tense of a sad pathetic, complaining little noise made by a lamb. As opposed to "Mheeeeh" which is an angry noise made by the lamb's mother. Unless you feel yourself to be a lamb then I would imagine in this case it is merely a missed erronious spellchecker correction for "deleted." Glad to be of help.  Giano  19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Nickhh, and would appreciate an explanation by him.  Sandstein  20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wishful thinking, Giano. Deleted doesn't really convert to bleated very easily. And deleted wouldn't make sense in the context. Looks like some people are just resorting to subtle name-calling because they've run out of other options. Good luck trying to argue logically in this discussion, Sandstein. It's falling on deaf ears. Breein1007 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, Sandstein hasn't made any great effort to argue logically in this discussion. Sandstein has topic-banned Nableezy yesterday for edits he made to an AfD a month ago. Nableezy had previously pointed out that he had specifically requested advice from the relevant admin about whether his topic ban included AfDs, and was told that it didn't. Sandstein two weeks later replied that absent a diff proving that this exchange between Nableezy and his blocking admin took place, whatever advice he may have received is "immaterial," and without further ado topic-bans him. Nableezy within two hours says hold on, here's your diff, and sure enough, it shows exactly what Nableezy claimed and Sandstein doubted. Instead of apologizing for his mistake, Sandstein tries to bluster it out, telling Nableezy that "it is your own responsibility to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner." And then still refuses to reconsider his decision.

That's right: Sandstein is giving Nableezy a two-month topic ban for month-old edits, and has the audacity to lecture Nableezy about timeliness, because Nableezy took two hours to provide the diff that makes complete nonsense of Sandstein's reasoning.

Hope this wasn't TLDR. And for ban-happy admins who've lost their minds as well as their dictionaries, "bluster" means to protest in an empty but noisy way so as to distract attention from the relevant point. It's not all that different from Nableezy meant by "bleat."--G-Dett (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another request for reconsideration

Sandstein, it seems to me that you are topic banning Nableezy for two months, for making AfD edits which were arguably reverting vandalism, but arguably in contravention of a ban which was about to expire in a mere few hours, a ban whose imposition had been strongly disputed by several respected admins and even by "the other side". This overrode the judgment of earlier administrators who had dismissed complaints on the same facts. (You incorrectly say above that these earlier requests and decisions were not linked. What reason there could ever be for not be taking them into account is mystifying.) Is this not wheel-warring in spirit? Does this really seem to you to be an exercise of good judgment?

In my view you have tried with some success to be predictable and clear in your administrative actions. Such an aim can be taken too far. Applying rules mechanically here and arbitrary and ungrounded dismissal of strong arguments as "immaterial" seems to me to make this decision the opposite of what I believe you intend: capricious and tyrannical, and more disruptive to writing an encyclopedia than anything Nableezy has done.John Z (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John Z, for saying what needs to be said in an eloquent and respectful fashion. I'm frankly too outraged (still) to have formulated so generously. Tiamut^talk 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not topic-banning him just for violating a ban. I am topic-banning him for breaking a ban (whose validity is not subject to discussion here) in order to edit-war and for being completely unapologetic about it. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. Had Nableezy acknowledged his ban violation and undone his edits as soon as possible, or even in the AE proceedings, my ban would not have happened. However, since he chooses to present himself as an innocent victim, I believe that the new ban is required to prevent continued confrontative behavior in the area of conflict.

Of course, I (like any other person) may be mistaken about this. If so, there are appeals procedures which allow for a review and discussion of my decision. I believe I have now said all that can reasonably be said about this issue and will decline to answer further questions.  Sandstein  21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I understand you have discussed this at length above, but I have just read up on this, and am considering whether to file an appeal on Nableezy's behalf. I am hoping to get your thoughts on a couple of points before doing so, which strike me as why this may have touched such a raw nerve. First is simply the appearance that there was a misapprehension here which should have affected whether a sanction was imposed, but then hasn't. This appears to me in your suggestion that although Nickh and Nishidani technically violated the ban it would only be punitive to impose a sanction at this point due to the time elapsed, and due to the lack of more recent violations. However, you said that Nableezy was distinguished in that he was unapologetic, in claiming that AGK had already waived the applicability of the sanction to AfDs. We now know that Nableezy was correct in saying this. You point out that two of his edits were still a day early, and this seems to be correct. But what then is different from the other two cases? I do see one additional point, that Nableezy edit warred, unlike the others who were simply leaving comments. I think that is a fair point. Mitigating, on the other hand, is the fact that he was only a day before the expiration, and may well have made a mistake. Is this really immaterial, as you initially thought?

The second point relates to my thought that if you had made this decision a month ago, or two weeks ago, I do not think it would have brought this reaction. At this point it is more than a month after the incident, and more than two weeks after another administrator declined action while giving Nableezy strongly-worded advice for going forward. Whereas Nableezy had one day left on his sanction a month ago when this happened, you've now added another two months onto the end, starting a month after this happened. It seems that if we are trying to bring people into the fold of a certain kind of behavior, this is far enough removed from the incident where a negative result is predictable. Indeed, another request regarding Nableezy had just been withdrawn due to an apology,[4] which seemed to have resolved the current crises on a good note. Then we're back to punishing Nableezy for something from a month (and more than 500 edits) ago. I can try to make an appeal as you suggest; I'm afraid it will all be a bit unwieldy. I just wanted to raise these thoughts with you first to see if there was any wiggle room. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think you have assessed the facts of the case pretty well. Before I spend yet more time arguing about this, though, I wonder if it makes any sense to discuss the merits of a sanction against an editor who has declared himself retired from Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair question. My hope is that a calmer re-evaluation might encourage him and others to reconsider. I don't think his actions have been so problematic at all that we should welcome his retirement. Clearly he's frustrated, as are others, but maybe there is a gesture that could get things back in the right direction. Mackan79 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I neither welcome nor regret his retirement (I am ignorant of his previous editing history), but if an editor retires altogether rather than edit within the restrictions of a fairly limited topic ban or even appeal it, this may be another indication that the topic ban was not a bad idea. At any rate, I'll not spend more time discussing what is an entirely moot question as long as the editor in question is retired from Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That you can characterize Nableezy's retirement, which was due to the injustice of your decision, as further proof of the justice of your decision, speaks volumes as to the limits of your capacity for self-reflection. Or else, you are latching on to yet another excuse not to re-evaluate this massive blunder. In either case, it shows that you do not deserve your admin tools - at all. Tiamut^talk 09:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I find my reactions to Wikipedia a bit muted these days, but then I've always been something of a pragmatist. Clearly others get more invested. Taking that as your view, it doesn't seem especially likely that you might reconsider in any case, if he expressed a wish to continue editing. I think a break might be a good thing, but I also wanted to express what I think has partly gone wrong here. On the other side of this event, I think people forget that Wikipedia is what it is, that people are what they are, and you kind of may as well deal with what you get. All of that aside, I think considering this was a day before the sanction ended, and that you didn't realize this, it would be reasonable at least to shorten the duration. In fact by your analysis the talk page sanction that was violated was only for one month, and so should presumably not have resulted in a lengthening of longer than that. Is this not the case? I would appreciate a response, of course, but I won't press you any further. Mackan79 (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, as explained above, is that a new topic ban is an appropriate and preventative response to the conduct at issue. Arbitral bans are the result of binding dispute resolution. Those who disobey them in order to disrupt Wikipedia, even a second before the ban's expiration, must be prepared to face severe consequences, in this case a reimposition of the original sanction. Of course, these matters are judgment calls. Another admin might have assessed the situation quite differently, as it seems Tznkai did in a previous request. Others may disagree with the timing or scope of my sanction, and that's fine. That's why there's an appeals process that allows for community discussion. If an appeal leads to admin consensus that another sanction or no sanction at all would be appropriate, that's fine with me. But since the editor has retired from Wikipedia, any discussion about the merits of the sanction would be, in my opinion, moot.  Sandstein  18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't you see that the retirement template was placed in protest to your decision? I put one up too, so did Nishidani. You just don't get it. Nableezy was made to feel unwelcome here by your decision, because its arbitrary and punitive and patently unfair. Rather than doing the humane thing and conceding that you were wrong, you have consistently shifted the goalposts so as to rationalize to seven different people objecting to your decision, why it is justified. If an editor were editing an article page right now and was faced with opposition for their edits by seven other editors and refused to back down, we would say they were failing to abide by consensus and perhaps even that they were being tendentious. Why is this case any different? Does being admin grant you a superhuman exemption from responding to the concerns of your fellow editors? I don't think so. Please do the right thing. Please undo sanction so that Nableey can feel welcome here again and maybe he will come out of retirement and the damage you've done will be undone. Tiamut^talk 19:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If Nableezy thinks that labeling himself retired is an appropriate way to protest my sanction, fine, but I am taking him at his word and consider him gone from Wikipedia, and his case thus closed. The continued and increasingly impolite requests by editors such as you, who seem to be closely associated (in the disputes surrounding the I-P conflict) with Nableezy do not impress me at all. If anything, you make me more disinclined to reexamine my decision with each of your repetitive messages. I have repeatedly told you, and will not tell you again, that the proper way to obtain the input of uninvolved administrators, who are the people I will listen to, is the appeals process as provided for in the arbitral decision. However, my position is that people who violate an arbitral ban to edit-war must be prepared to face severe consequences, no matter what their other merits are, and I would be surprised if many of my fellow administrators were to feel differently.  Sandstein  19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving no doubt as to your view that Wikipedia is a caste system where the opinions of mere editors (or outcasts) are unworthy of your consideration. As you will only listen to your fellow Brahmins, there is no point in speaking to you any further. I only hope that some of them are more egalitarian, and do not share your view that some animals are more equal than others. Tiamut^talk 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of Karl Kraus

disrupt (1)'to burst asunder'.(2)'to break into pieces, shatter.' (source:Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2nd.ed.1989, vol.IV, p.832 col.3.) I.e. Nableezy's two edits shattered wikipedia, or threatened to burst it asunder.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not very fair of you, Nishidani. Do you not then also agree that pretty much all other inappropriate edits on Wikipedia are similarly not "disruptive"? I mean, vandalism is classified as a disruptive edit, but really... does a user posting random crap on an article or arbitrarily blanking an article "shatter" Wikipedia? No, not at all. It's just a minor annoyance that will likely be corrected within minutes. It's easy to pick at words and find their definitions to try to trivialize others' arguments, but in the big picture, it really isn't an effective way to debate. Breein1007 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kraus was into etymological fallacies? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No more drama please

This section, prior to this post, is 37 kB long, which makes it 36.5 kB too long. To anybody who is protesting this decision, I am sure there are many things that would be a more constructive use of your time. Sandstein, regarding my "legal threat", I apologize for that; out of frustration I did something stupid. I obviously feel that your sanction is ridiculous, so much so that I do not feel the need to explain why. You say I am unapologetic, you are damn right I am. I felt, and still feel, that edits removing or modifying others posts were vandalism and that highly involved users should not be attempting to enforce arbitration decisions. To each person I reverted I asked them to instead go to WP:AE so that an uninvolved admin may make a determination of whether Nick and Nishidani's comments were violations of their topic bans and what to do about them if they were. So yes, I am unapologetic. My "retirement" is not something that I did to "protest" the decision; dramatic gestures are not really my style. I just do not want to deal with this anymore. As far as I am concerned the issue is closed and would appreciate these being the final words wasted on the topic. Peace and happiness everybody. nableezy - 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Was about to let the whole thing drop ...

And then you did this. There is no way that Nableezy filing a sockpuppet report regarding User:Lovely day350 and User:Brewcrewer could be considered a violation of an Israel-Palestine topic ban, even if you are arguing that the two accused editors are single-purpose accounts. The edits of LovelyDay350 that Nableezy cites as evidence were made to Talk:Arab Christians (not witin the scope of the ban) and the 3RR noticeboard (also not within the scope of the topic ban). And even if the edits cited were within the topic area, a sockpuppet report is not disallowed by your sanction, which makes exceptions for dealing with vandalism, with sockpuppeting surely falls under.

Please immediately undo this block. I notice it was the first thing you did when you came back to editing today. You are exercising extremely poor judgement here Sandstein, and considering this block comes right after Nableezy's very generous statement above asking others to stop discussing his ban, you seem to adding fuel to fire in a way that is extremely disruptive and vindictive. What is the point exactly? Tiamut^talk 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just routine ban enforcement. Vandalism is not sockpuppeting, and vice versa. The merits of the block have already been reviewed by an administrator. Nableezy is free to make more unblock requests.  Sandstein  19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good answer! But just to clarify, if Nableezy decides to make an unblock request, given that the block itself was I-P related, won't the unblock request ipso facto also be I-P related and therefore a violation of his topic ban? The topic ban you just renewed for two months because of something he did a month ago?

If so, this may provide a further opportunity to display your remarkable wisdom and judiciousness as an admin. Having granted Nableezy a particular freedom and invited him to exercise it, you could then ban him for doing so.--G-Dett (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not "routine ban enforcement". Your topic ban did not specify that Nableezy was not allowed to file sockpuppet reports. If your intention was to include such a restriction is his ban, you should have warned him and explained this after he filed the report, rather than summarily blocking him.

"The merits of the block have already been reviewed by an administrator," is a cop out statement and is highly misleading. You left a note saying the block could not be undone, except by achieving consensus at WP:AE, making it clear that no admin could just simply undo your action. User:Fastily declined to unblock after you left that note, and he warned Nableezy not to use the template again, threatening to cut off his talk page access if he did, so your claim that Nableezy is free to make more unblock requests is disingenuous. Furthermore, Fastily made a number of statements previously, basically accusing Nableezy of sockpuppeting, so I do not consider him an uninvolved admin as regards Nableezy [5], [6].

Sandstein, this is your last chance to redeem yourself and prove that you are not out to get Nableezy. Please undo this block now. Tiamut^talk 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not helping Nableezy with this wikilawyering. If he listens to you, I'd advise him to obey the topic ban and edit something entirely unrelated to the I-P conflict, which is probably something like 99.99% of our pages. A topic ban is a blanket prohibition from making any edits related even tangentially to the prohibited topic. It is not necessary to specify each and every possible sort of such edit in the topic ban description.  Sandstein  19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I thought it was possible to reason with you, given your earlier responses above. Fine Sandstein. I'm not sure how to go about appealing this. But regardless of whether it is appealed or not, or overturned or not, I am going to approach all the other editors who commented here about opening an User RfC on you. I think its time you learned that being an admin does not make you God. Have a nice day. Tiamut^talk 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal the topic ban, you should use the template {{Sanction appeal}} on WP:AE. If you do, I intend to argue that you, not being the sanctioned user, do not have standing to appeal, so you may wish to leave any appeal to Nableezy himself. Of course, it is quite possible that the community will still hear your appeal.  Sandstein  21:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And if Nableezy does the appealing per your suggestion, you can then block him for violating his topic ban! It's wonderful. It all makes such perfect sense.--G-Dett (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. The right to appeal is provided for by the arbitral decision, so it cannot be subject to a topic ban imposed under the authority of that same decision.  Sandstein  21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems absurd; there must be a work-around. Perhaps if he fails to provide a diff to the "arbitral" decision you could declare that decision immaterial.--G-Dett (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've lost me here. What do you mean by this?  Sandstein  21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The comedy in accusing others of wikilawyering while saying you plan on arguing that the user has no standing to request an appeal aside, I think you will need to find another argument. WP:AE#Appeal by Nableezy. nableezy - 20:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

For [7]. You must be the first person other than me to actually bother trying to read MN's diffs :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very odd, this.  Sandstein  22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work

On the Nableezy AE. I would have let my comment at the appeal speak for itself, but since Tiamut contacted 20 people who are not on my side of the aisle, and is now commenting on how many of them turned up to comment here, I thought it was worth saying hello, happy new year, and good job. WP is often an unjust place, I've found. It's a pleasure to see some good work done. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lifting the ban

Good move, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see now that it is frankly not worth taking up the time of all concerned to argue about sanctions that result in sanctions that result... Discretionary sanctions are really most appropriately used to react to actual disruption, of which I hope we will not see any by Nableezy any time soon.  Sandstein  18:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to second Slim's comments. As I said in my main comment, there are more than two people who have been working themselves up over this. What you have just done will hopefully quieten things for a while. What I found most encouraging about this episode is that a couple of editors did advocate on behalf of someone on the "other" side of the I-P dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC) (Off to Nableezy's page before returning to the exchange of friendly greetings with representatives of the Jewish Internet Defense Force ;-)

I couldn't agree more with all the sentiments above. Thanks, Sandstein, John Z (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not usually one to hand out shiny crap, but this is one occasion I can not miss. AE certainly is a thankless task; trying to make non-obvious decisions while most participants are busy throwing up smokescreens. Do it right and people are pissed at you, get it wrong and even more people are pissed at you.

I was right in the middle of digging through diffs and timelines and writing a long and rambling opinion on the Nableezy case, which you thankfully saved me from. And for this I say: Thanks, Sandstein, we owe you one:

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For skillfully and determinedly navigating the arbitration enforcement process. henrik•talk 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and also to all colleagues who did already write these long rambling opinions :-)  Sandstein  18:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Happy New Year from Thailand. You are a great editor. I have been looking at Thailand-related articles, and noticed an article about an obscure man who worked as a missionary in Thailand. I can find nothing related to WIKI notability standards. So far only one note to KEEP with no valid reason. Your opinion is appreciated. Thank you. รัก-ไทย 07:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, thanks; which article?  Sandstein  07:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of former

Good close. And well-written and explained rationale. You may want to leave a note, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Former_religion. Hope you are doing well, Cirt (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the AfD is already linked in that discussion. Best regards,  Sandstein  07:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, no worries, Cirt (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My appeal

I think I will follow your advice and withdraw my appeal. I will do my best to be problem-free for about 2 months and then ask Henrik to lift the formal restriction. Sorry for all the trouble I have caused. Offliner (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible violation of topic ban

Hi, I'm not sure of the proper procedures, but this is just to let you know that Tymek has violated his topic ban here: [8] Triplestop x3 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Tymek to comment here.  Sandstein  06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Triplestop for being so interested in my me and my contributions to the project. Such vigilant members of civilian Wiki-militia are always appreciated. Now to the topic. The only thing that Poeticbent has in comon with Eastern Europe is that he is a Polish born, Canadian-Polish artist. Where he was born and went to school is obviously not material to his article. Since Triplestop is fully aware of this, given how closely he followed the case (for no apparant reason) this notification is just the worst kind of block-shopping by him, not to mention a cynical attempt at silencing those who might vote against him in his AfD. Tymek (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject, Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is not only a Polish national, but almost all of the article concerns his work in or about Poland, which is a country in Eastern Europe. Consequently, by editing the AfD about him, you violated your topic ban (WP:EEML#Tymek topic banned) "from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed". Moreover, your comment above is unnecessarily aggressive and derogatory; by making such comments you treat Wikipedia as a battleground, conduct for which the Committee has already censured you (WP:EEML#Disruption 3). Per WP:EEML#Enforcement, therefore, you are blocked for 48 hours.  Sandstein  16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Poland is in Central Europe, not Eastern.--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Like most of Central Europe, it is also part of Eastern Europe under most of the definitions in the article Eastern Europe; that is enough for inclusion in a widely construed topic ban.  Sandstein  16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ with that; the idea that all ex-communist countries are in Eastern Europe is described there as outdated. And geographically Poland is right in the middle of the continent.--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, "about Eastern Europe" can hardly be taken to mean "mentioning some subject with some connection to Eastern Europe" - the article in question is about a person who happened to be born there. This is construing far too widely IMO.--Kotniski (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans are generally construed very widely, including by ArbCom. The topic ban appears particularly relevant in the case of this AfD since the prior AfD seems to have been part of the disputes related to or covered by the WP:EEML case. For these reasons, I will not lift the block, but as described on the arbitration page, any enforcement action can be appealed to WP:AE or ArbCom.  Sandstein  17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Kotniski. We all know what the EEML situation was about. Of course the terms of the topic bans are meant to cover the "Eastern European" situations in the sense of what the focus of disruption was in that case. Arguing that Poland, of all things, should fall outside those bans can hardly be taken seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there any disruption concerning modern Poland? Sorry, I don't know, I only took a peripheral interest in the case (I didn't read any private e-mails). I kind of assumed it was about lands that really were in Eastern Europe, possibly having been ruled by Poland at one time or another. If it included Kraków, then it was a horribly misnamed case. (Or a horribly misnamed mailing list; but that doesn't excuse ArbCom for failing to word their decisions meaningfully.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. I take your point. Sorry for not thinking you'd be so happily ignorant of the details (I envy that ;-). But the fact is, yes, Poland in all its various conflict situations was pretty much one of the main focus areas – including Polish-German disputes, Polish-Ukrainian, Polish-Lithuanian, and of course Polish-Russian issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, I do not begrudge Tymek for merely contributing to the AfD. His short PERNOM argument amounted to votestacking in my opinion, given the history behind all this, I felt that invoking WP:EEML was necessary. Such political involvement is absolutely unacceptable as it prevents people from judging the article based on its merits alone. Triplestop x3 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tymek blocked?

Why Tymek was blocked? He is great and good editor. I dont see any reason to block him. Stop blocking start talking with users. Wikipedia is going to wrong way--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my explanation immediately above.  Sandstein  18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And the irony is, that Paweł5586 currently is also under EE topic ban [9], this time it's WP:DIGWUREN. M0RD00R (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• question for Sandstein: not so long ago you were trumpeting that you don't do arbitration enforcements anymore because, if i remember correctly, you felt that the ArbCom doesn't give you support (or something like that). have you come out of retirement or is this block an una tantum 'special'?  Dr. Loosmark  01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I stopped AE because of what I believed was inadequate support of enforcement actions by ArbCom. I resumed AE on January 1 with the assumption of office by a new ArbCom, who I believe based on their election statements will be more inclined to support enforcement actions.  Sandstein  06:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks for clarifying that.  Dr. Loosmark  10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle

I was reading your addition to Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle and clicked on the reference you included regarding his supposed Swiss citizenship. I had never heard of this before and after extensive research, could not find any other sources that relate to this issue. Therefore, I have removed your comment. The link you included is in German and thus, not appropriate for the en.wikipedia.org site. Is there perhaps a legitimate English link you can add? Thanks. --Neon Sky (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is by now one English source, [10]. The rest is in the Chilean and Swiss press, and hence in Spanish and German, as can be seen at [11] and [12]. Per WP:VUE, "English-language sources are preferable", but "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available."  Sandstein  06:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you so much for updating the links. This is the first I have heard of it. I am terribly curious to know how the issue regarding being a Chlean presidential candidate and having a dual citizenship works. Any leads/links you can furnish would be appreciated. I'll look into this later on today when I arrive back home. In the meantime, thanks! --Neon Sky (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; this is actually a somewhat active topic in Swiss politics right now, with politicians asking questions about how a grandchild of a Swiss emigrant gets to obtain Swiss citizenship even though he's hardly ever been in the country, but I gather the details of this would not interest an international readership, and would also unbalance the article.  Sandstein  17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

True. International newsworthiness is in proportion to the effects one country has on another (i.e. Spanish immigration and citizenship within the EU). --Neon Sky (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing comment from Poeticbent

Hi, I would like to point out this comment here. This edit is an attempt to derail the AfD by distracting it from a discussion of why he is or is not worthy of inclusion to personal attacks on those voting to delete the article. It is clear from his comment that he is not going to discuss the merits of the article. I would like him to stop disrupting the AfD by using it as a battleground against those who disagreed with him on the EEML case, however I am not quite sure of the procedure to take regarding this. I believe it may violate the Remedies under WP:DIGWUREN. Triplestop x3 20:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The forum would be WP:AE, but I do not see anything actionable in that statement.  Sandstein  21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, if you do not believe it to be actionable then I will not pursue it further. However, what can be done to stop the disruption? Triplestop x3 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What disruption? Making arguments of questionable merit at AfD is not disruption.  Sandstein  22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Restraint from actions/edits which can be seen as opportunistic while certain editors are banned, taken by editors who are demonstrably opposed to said banned editors by having presented evidence against them (or editors seen in talk chumming up to said editors and making disparaging remarks regarding said banned editors), would be helpful. Just a thought. AGF in 2010 will not work on blind faith alone.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, I am not sure I follow that, but I can recognize a situation where a number of editors have a feud with each other over a long period of time, and in my experience these people tend to leave the project sooner or later (usually involuntarily) unless they learn to disengage from each other. Now would be a good time to start.  Sandstein  22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please do not assume bad faith. I commented on the EEML case because I was truly disturbed by what was happening, not because I have anything to gain as I do not edit EE related topics. Not once have I "chummed up" to the editors. On the contrary, I was quite critical of both sides. Remember that this is not a vote, so having certain people banned does not affect the outcome at all.

Sandstein, Poeticbent's comments serve to turn the AfD to a battleground and distracts from the true purpose of the AfD, which is to assess the person's worthiness of inclusion. Triplestop x3 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll only make my point that there were sources identified at the last AFD which have not been added. The AFD is only a continuation of the feud whereas a few improvements and letting sleeping dogs lie would have been much more appropriate for both sides to disengage. What is the point of a 3rd AFD if not to pick at wounds and exclaim HA HA HA you can't vote anymore, evil banned editors? (I regret that's my perception, I won't be saying anything more with regard to the choice of AFD versus article improvement, or anything else regarding this matter.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A link to the previous AfD is provided for all to consider. If people truly believe these sources are any good, they would have mentioned them. Triplestop x3 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, disengaged.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Image272.jpg

Hi, I note you uploded a new version of this... What was the extent of your new contribution so that I can credit appropriately? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Color and contrast correction, I think; no need to credit me for that.  Sandstein  06:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

Hi Sandstein, I am just letting you know that I have lodged an appeal on the topic ban which was placed upon me by yourself in September of last year at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal_by_Russavia. Please note that I am not appealing to have the topic ban lifted in its entireity, but rather modified in order to allow me to edit in two specific areas where my editing is not of concern. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Polite Request

Please review the comments by Enric Naval which confirm that I really have been working to promote neutrality on the article and that the complainant and the editor whose editing led to the complaint really have been actively trying to push for a pro-FLG PoV. Simonm223 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments are noted. But one does not promote neutrality by edit-warring and mislabeling content disagreements as vandalism. One promotes neutrality by following proper dispute resolution procedures. It is your failure to do so, not the merits of your (or the others') edits, that is at issue.  Sandstein  22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

EEML remedy 11A

Vecrumba and Martintg are now commenting on Russavia in the AE thread. However, both Vecrumba and Martintg are (or at least should be) under EE topic ban and they are under restriction to comment on Russavia.

11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. (WP:EEML#Editors restricted)

How are their comments legitimate and necessary dispute resolution? Isn't this exactly what remedy 11A was supposed to prevent—baiting Russavia on threads that do not concern them? Offliner (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I fail to see how my support for the relaxation of Russavia's ban could be considered "baiting" by Offliner, unless he assumes very bad faith. Given that Russavia and I have been in serious dispute in the past, and that dispute led down the path to his topic ban, I believe my comment was a necessary and legitimate first attempt at resolving that underlaying dispute. If you think otherwise, please remove my comment and I will make no further attempts at dispute resolution or reconciliation. Thanks. --Martin (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Henrik has now blocked one editor and warned the other, so I think this is resolved for the time being.  Sandstein  18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The remedy said they are forbidden except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. Since both of these two editors made positive comments in regards with narrowing Russavia's topic ban, it seems stupid that the admins are now punishing them for a step in the right direction which could lead to a more collaborative atmosphere in the future.  Dr. Loosmark  20:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No battleground, understood

Hello, I can assure you I don't wish to make a battleground where there is none. So I did strike out that part of my comments. Actually I did not incriminate any one person in particular, I wanted to add some context. And also I can assure you that I don't mind if somebody is not agreeing with me, however I do prefer to make sure that people engage in rational discussion point by point on the content rather then blind reverts or continuous personal labeling. Is this reasonable to expect? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To keep this in one place, please make any arguments in the section reserved for your statement on WP:AE.  Sandstein  08:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I need to communicate with you directly, that's what I write here. Just two things. 1) Since discretionary sanctions are now allowed for these articles, I request that you consider whether they are appropriate in my case. In particular, given the wider context of the articles and editing environment, and the impact it will have to the NPOV of the pages if certain editors have a free hand--just to put it bluntly. Most of the Persecution of Falun Gong page was deleted when I did not edit, for example (a previous version), simply because no one was there to stop it. 2) I believe there is an AE case for Colipon and his engagement with this topic; at least, I think it should be aired, and in the absence of anyone else volunteering to do so, I intend to prepare it. I don't like this litigious approach, but hey. I'm not sure to what extent related AE submissions are considered with respect to one another, but I don't think I'll be able to finish it for another 20 hours. Just FYI. Thanks for your time.--Asdfg12345 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify

I think a clarification is needed here. As far as I understand it, a "topic ban" includes all related talkpages as well. Is that correct? Please clarify before Asdfg unknowingly finds himself in breach of the sanctions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, his topic ban excludes talk pages.  Sandstein  07:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. thanks. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is that, by the way? (the topic ban excluding talk pages)--Asdfg12345 10:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Because a ban from discussions is, in my judgment and based on your past edits, not required to prevent the conduct that the ban is aimed at preventing (single purpose advocacy in articles and edit-warring).  Sandstein  11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle

Hi Sandstein: Regarding your undoing my comments, I re-added them. Although I don't believe this will be a permanent note on the project, I consider that for today it is appropriate considering it's a historical event. According to the very rule you cited, it does state "including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate.." I believe this is such a time. Thanks! :) --Neon Sky (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, just reiterating that I don't think I'm going to appeal.

The truth of the matter is that I got tired (some months ago) of what felt like forced edit-warring with Asdfg12345 and Happy In General and began to take a very hard-line stance to their edits that may not, in retrospect, have been entirely condusive to the well being of the article. If you exclude reverts to those two editors I may have only had one revert in the last six months to this group of articles as the majority of the editors on it are very dedicated to the improvement and neutrality of the articles. As my own ultimate goal is a neutral and factual set of articles on this group I don't forsee any great need for use of the revert function for now.

I think, in light of the disciplines set out for Asdfg12345 and HappyInGeneral that you have handled this conflict fairly. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds encouraging.  Sandstein  20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

Just curious, don't you find Matthead's statement "Copernicus was about as Polish as Jesus was Italian - or less" problematic?  Dr. Loosmark  14:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand what that might mean, or what Jesus or Copernicus have to do with each other. If it just means that he believes that Copernicus was not Polish, what's the problem with that?  Sandstein  14:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there are ways and ways to formulate one's thoughts and that's exactly the point. Matthead knows very well that Jesus has nothing to do with Copernicus so why do you think he made a comparison like that? Whatever one thinks about Copernicus it's clear that mostly he is considered to be Polish in one way or another. Since nobody ever considers Jesus to be Italian and he had absolutely nothing to do with Italy saying that Copernicus was even less Polish than Jesus was Italian is clearly a direct anti-Polish provocation. Amazing you don't see a problem with that.  Dr. Loosmark  14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the nationality of Copernicus is a big issue for some, but I find this dispute to be seriously lame. My strong advice for you and all other editors in this dispute, on either side, is to drop the issue, fast, or it may end in sanctions for all involved.  Sandstein  15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "drop the issue"? The only reason I brought up his comments about Copernicus is because they were in my opinion very arrogant and provocative. Had he just expressed his opinion that Copernicus is not Polish in a polite way I couldn't have cared less. I'm not interested in the nationality of Copernicus, I have not made any uncivil remarks in regards with Copernicus, in fact I have not even participated in the dispute on the talk page. On the other hand Matthead has (the talk page is full of his comments and he does edit the article, unlike me). So direct your warnings towards him and please leave me out of it.  Dr. Loosmark  15:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, my advice is not get too excited about this and not to go about assuming bad faith and provocative intent. "A very shocking provocation designed to bait Polish editors"? My goodness. WP:AGF and just don't take the bait if you believe it is one. People are allowed to disagree with each other, you know. And if one takes the view that the very idea of "nationality", i.e. "Polish" or "German", is somewhat difficult to apply to Renaissance persons who lived before the era of the nation-state, this all gets even less worth being excited about.  Sandstein  20:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning 2

Hi Sandstein, I saw your warning. However my AE comment was meant to convey two points directly related to the subject of the report:

1. To give some context to Radek's comments, particularly in light of Matthead's comment "I was kind of puzzled by these provocative edits to my talk page"
2. My understanding of Radek's comments in light of that context.

Feel free to strike my AE comment if you believe it was unhelpful. --Martin (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, AE reports don't need "context" in the vein of "but the other guy also misbehaved!" Everybody is responsible only for their own edits. If these are disruptive, or in violation of a ban, they may be sanctioned whether or not somebody else was also disruptive. This is described, with respect to blocks, at WP:NOTTHEM.  Sandstein  20:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee

I suggest you should read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions and unblock coffee. He was reporting what ArbCom recently stated there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am about to post at WP:AN.  Sandstein 

Ok, but I still think one edit is not really edit warring. While he should have pointed out the arbcom motion with the edit, the block is still not justified from just looking at it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the AN post; I still believes he needs to be unblocked as soon as possible. As pointed out by the ArbCom motion he did mention, but not link, that administrators are tasked with dealing with BLP violations and BLP trumps all policies. The only thing it told users to do was to act in a less chaotic manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WP:PROD wheel war and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 09:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Escalating with your block

Sandstein, I'm frustrated by your rapid escalation of the situation by blocking Coffee. I don't think that you talked the situation through enough to resolve the matter before the block. The use of block tools need to be a last resort. There was no emergency about which wording is on that policy page. That goes for Coffee, too. There is not urgency to get a particular wording into the policy today. Prods are being used effectively now. Everyone needs to chill. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, as one who has recently and harshly criticized you, thank you for ... being Sandstein, a constant, a calm level-headed person of integrity and courage. You and Durova spoke wisely in your RfC section.John Z (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments. I've expressed my view of the matter in more detail at WP:RFAR.  Sandstein  16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tadija

WP:ARBMAC and its associated articles are not really my area of work. Per this thread at ANI, Tadija (talk · contribs) may bear closer scrutiny. He seemed very pleased that Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) was handed an indef block by Tbsdy, which was later lifted. HRB has been given some good advice, and has stated that they'll follow NPOV and not break the topic ban again. As you seem to be familiar with ARBMAC, would you care to take a closer look? Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User talk:Evlekis#Human Rights Believer is very odd. But can't see anything that would require immediate enforcement at this stage. Gloating is bad form, but the reaction to your warning at User talk:Tadija#Admins actions against other editors sounds encouraging.  Sandstein  16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't want to get dragged into the Balkans thing if I can avoid it. Assuming the warning is heeded I see no need for further action at this time. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gute Arbeit

Gute Arbeit! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.160.40.139 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Almost two years ago, you closed the deletion discussion of the Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance page here. I've finally gotten around to fixing it to something worth while, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it here before I upload it to the main space. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at a glance it seems that the content about the actual incident is is not very much better sourced than at the time of the AfD. Only the reference to the TV program is new, but lacks a year. I'd ask WP:DRV before uploading this to main space, but at this time I doubt that it meets WP:N.  Sandstein  06:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually plan on adding in a link to that book that was discussed at the AFD. Thanks for the suggestions though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bosniak's Balkans topic ban

I note that User:Bosniak is ignoring his Balkans topic ban, having made six edits to Balkans-related topics since you imposed it. If you're not the right person to enforce this ban, please let me know where to raise this matter (WP:ANI? WP:ARBMAC?) —Psychonaut (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked indefinitely.  Sandstein  12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Given his statement, "I have other IP addresses with different accounts", is it worth initiating a report at WP:SPI at this time? A direct admission by the user of sockpuppetry is pretty solid evidence, though normally SPI expects a list of specific suspected sockpuppet accounts. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this would be considered sufficient grounds for a checkuser. You might also want to wait until suspicious new accounts appear that edit in a similar manner.  Sandstein  17:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. By the way, could I persuade you to check in at Talk:Srebrenica Children Massacre? This is one of User:Bosniak's articles which I'm now trying to salvage (if possible). I've identified some possible POV, sourcing, and notability issues with it but, as is all too common with articles related to the aftermath of the Yugoslavia breakup, I am finding it difficult to discuss them without becoming the target of insults and having my motives called into question. (For the record, I'm not normally involved in editing any Balkans-related articles, except to monitor vandalism, copyright violations, and edits which are obviously against policy.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there administrator action needed? I'd prefer not to become involved with content issues, because I know and care little about the subject.  Sandstein  17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought so. I'm not asking for intervention on the content issues, but rather on the personal attacks and abuse. Also, the page may need to be semi-protected, as Bosniak is using his personal blog (which is actually used as a reference or external link on about a dozen Wikipedia articles) to incite his readers to revert my edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for the edits on account of which you request action? As to protection, please use WP:RPP in the event of excessive vandalism.  Sandstein  20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problematic (in terms of WP:NPA/WP:AGF) edit in question, where there are accusations of "malicious meddling", etc. If you think no action is warranted then I don't mind personally, but I think that this sort of overtly hostile reaction to good-faith sourcing and POV investigation is what scares away a lot of other would-be contributors to articles in this subject area. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not good, but still a matter of WP:DR rather than admin action; you can also refer to WP:WQA if needed.  Sandstein  21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I left this at Od Mishehu's page but s/he felt it was more appropriate here with you.

"Bosniak is sometimes rash and intemperate but he has nevertheless contributed a lot of valuable information to articles about Bosnia and in particular the Bosnian war. He does not always behave wisely but I don't think he is being completely unreasonable in considering himself provoked by Psychonaut, who seems disposed to challenge Bosniak's comments in a way and with a frequency that does not seem entirely guided by practical considerations."

Having now read Psychonaut's disingenuous comments here I'd reiterate what I've said. Bosniak has personal experience of matters discussed which I have learned over time makes his judgment rather sounder than his behaviour often suggests. Psychonaut seems either to lack judgment or sensitivity in relation to the subject matter of Bosnian-related articles he seeks to "salvage". He is certainly justified in some of his complaints about Bosniak's transgressions but he seems not to notice that his interventions might from time to time be considered to exacerbate an issue rather than help resolve it, particularly when he decides to "improve" or request deletion of Bosniak's contributions or challenge other Bosnians' experience. I know the Wikipedia principle that Wikipedia is not dealing with "the real" but rather with the "verifiable" but when there is an obvious disconnect it's not unreasonable to expect the use of informed discretion rather than an insistence on formal rigour.

To declare an interest I have found myself at odds with Psychonaut in the past in relation to Bosnian war-related issues and perhaps can't be considered a dispassionate judge. Bosniak certainly does himself a disservice by the way he reacts but to some degree I find that understandable given the history of what I perceive as widespread wilful obstruction and misinformation that has often inspired it (I'm not referring to Psychonaut in particular here). I am fortunate that my own knowledge and experience is second hand and I am more able to contain my reactions.

In this particular instance Bosniak's article had defects but merited constructive improvement. The event in April 1993 was a significant precursor of the subsequent genocidal events of July 1995. Most people would consider that someone with a record of previous disputes with the original contributor and no obvious familiarity with or affinity for the subject might have hesitated before embarking on a form of "salvage" that others would consider obstructive or even undermining. I'd be grateful if you would take that into account in whatever action you decide to take with respect to the article [Srebrenica Children Massacre]. Opbeith (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Moved to preserve chronological order) Well, I have no intention of doing anything with respect to the article Srebrenica Children Massacre, so I assume this is moot?  Sandstein  21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the mucking about - yes, sorry to have wasted your time! Opbeith (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP

I wanted to let you know how much I agree with you problems with the Arbcom motion on BLP. I'm a part-time editor, and this just confirms why I often edit as an IP. The motion pre-judges any case, and gives a green light to those deleting BLPs. Arbcom says they are neutral, but "commends" what happened? Then has the gall to act oh-so-surprised when the deletions continue? I like your response, and regardless of the side you may be on, someone needs to stand up and say that the motion was a terrible idea. Thanks. King Pickle (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't say the motion was a terrible idea, but it was certainly not the Committee's finest hour. I've no strong wikiphilosophical views on BLPs (if anything I think that we should more stringently delete persistently unsourced BLPs), but I agree that this case could have been handled more carefully and in a manner that does not encourage non-consensual and unilateral action.  Sandstein  19:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re arbitration enforcement topic ban

I am asking you to set aside this WP:AE Arbitration enforcement topic ban because there are doubts that AA2 is applicable to noticeboard postings.

According to another administrator, AA2 restrictions are not applicable to administrator noticeboards. In this thread [13] (close to the end of it) I pointed out that editors Murat and Brand were currently under AA2 editing restrictions which involved topic blocks. In the case of Brand, his editing restriction was as wide reaching as AA2 can go, namely being banned from making any posts (anywhere, I assumed) connected to the ethnic and historical issues related to Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran. When I suggested that both were breaking their editing restrictions by posting material on the administrator's noticeboard that was related to Armenia or Azerbaijan, Moreschi said that ANI threads did not count - so that "100% ban" edit restriction was not applicable to anywhere on Wikipeda. After Moreschi's reply to me, I assumed that edits falling under AA2 remits were restricted to edits to articles and their talk pages, and that AA2 remedies and restrictions could not be applied to administrator notice boards. Even if you think AA2 is applicable, another administrator has, before this incident, offered me a different opinion, which makes this particular application of AA2 controversial and questionable. Meowy 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As to the two posts that you objected to, I do accept that both of them were substantially off-topic and so they were not contributing to the subject being discussed. I will do my best to restrict any further administrator noticeboard comments I make to concise, on topic contributions. Meowy 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect with respect to the scope of the case. The operative remedy, Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, states that "the sanctions imposed may include ... bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics ... or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." This plainly allows bans from A-A-related AE discussions. Moreover, in the thread you link to Moreschi said "An ANI thread relating to you doesn't count", my emphasis, which is why your topic ban excludes AE threads started by you or requesting sanctions against yourself. The ban is valid and will be enforced with blocks or wider bans if required. Indeed, you are most likely only one single further instance of disruption (which may include making frivolous AE requests) away from a permanent general topic ban from anything related to A-A issues.

As to the merits of your request, the ban was not only imposed because your comments were off-topic, but because they were aggressively so, turning AE into the very battleground discretionary sanctions are meant to prevent. Because AE is not a venue for consensus-building, but a place to help admins decide whether enforcement is needed, comments by users not involved in a dispute are seldom necessary even if they are not aggressive and on-topic. For this reason, and taking into account your long history of disruption in this area, I do not believe that lifting the topic ban would be a net positive to the project, and decline to do so. You may continue to appeal the ban to WP:AE (using {{Sanction appeal}}) or to ArbCom as provided for in Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement.  Sandstein  21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh .. "the project". I happen to think that "the project" is a dangerous concept, essentially evil, complete with thuggish enforcers. Meowy 14:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Just to avoid any unintended anger, I think you said "very many of your articles..." when you meant "very many of our articles..." Might want to fix it, just to be safe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you very much! Fixed.  Sandstein  21:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel a little stupid for not fixing it myself, but there's that whole taboo against editing other people's comments that I didn't want to get into. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood that was a typo, but thanks to both anyway :) Sandstein, thanks for revisiting. It was probably my fault for not explaining more clearly, but one tries to present a neutral accounting of the issue the first time through :) And, my prose stinks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kühntopf

Hallo Sandstein, wir hatten vor vielen Monaten ja mal eine kurze Diskussion zum Artikel Michael Kühntopf, der schliesslich gelöscht wurde. Nun habe ich es erneut versucht und die Relevanz - aus meiner Sicht - herausgearbeitet. Vielleicht hast du Lust, den Artikel mal zu checken, vielleicht ist das Englisch nur drittklassig und könnte verbessert werden. Vielleicht sind die Kategorien auch nicht perfekt, oder weitere passende Kategorien fehlen. Danke. -- Schweizerfreund (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. So far, unfortunately, the article does not establish notability per WP:BIO - there are no references to third party sources covering the subject. Could you please link to the previous discussion(s) and to the title under which the article was previously deleted? Thanks,  Sandstein  06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Irgendwie wurde die Diskussion mitgelöscht, auf dieser Unterseite siehst du den alten Artikel einschliesslich eines Teils der Diskussion (unten ein Zitat von dir). Und hier sind ja auch die von dir vermissten third party sources aufgelistet (unten: Kritiken/Sekundärliteratur). Eine Fernsehsendung bzw. ein feature über sein Buch und das Thema Deutsche in der Schweiz habe ich auch gesehen (ist aber schon eine Weile her). Gruss, -- Schweizerfreund 12:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schweizerfreund (talk • contribs)

Problem with user:Kurfürst

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.

Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a lengthy conflict between two editors involving many content and conduct disputes that is much too complicated to be resolved by a sanction out of hand against either party. You are both advised to: (a) leave each other alone, (b) pursue dispute resolution in the event of content disagreements, (c) request arbitration enforcement in the case of egregious and obvious misconduct in the scope of WP:DIGWUREN that is not based on a content disagreement.

You are also both warned that making continued broad and unsupported allegations of misconduct against each other (such as the edit by Kurfürst initially reported by Loosmark below) may lead to completely random and unjust sanctions against whoever makes the allegations, if only to stop this noisy brawl.  Sandstein  12:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

User Kurfurst launched a totally unacceptable personal attack here [14]

This is a classical tactic by user:Kurfurst who instead of reporting the alleged disruptions to ANI or AE (knowing very well his complaint would end up in the bin) uses free defamation and intimidation. Nothing of what he writes is true: 1) I have not been engaged in "disruptive editing" in that or any other article 2) I have not "repeatedly removed sourced information" 3) it's not true that i am "not interested in discussion", everybody who cares to check can see that I am usually very interested in discussing things 4) I have not "closely cooperated with members of the EEML in a similar manner" (whatever that is) 5) I was not, am not and will never be "coordinated for disruptive tag teaming, stonewalling or reverts on nationalistic grounds".

This is not the first time that user Kurfurst tries to defame me (in the past he referred to me on a talk page as a "troll who raised his ugly head"). I donate a lot of my free time to improve wikipedia project and I don't believe I deserve to be defamed like that. He has a long block log and a history of aggressive behavior. I request you apply some sort of sanctions.  Dr. Loosmark  00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Kurfürst to comment.  Sandstein  06:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite playing innocent and ignorant of the EEML (the members of which he was actively communicating on the talk pages of wikipedia ;) ...) User:Loosmark is an easily identifiable editor with whom I had numerous troubles with in the past and who is (again) block shopping. He and some other Polish editors (Jacurek, Radeksz, Piotrus - these names should be familiar from a recent ArbCom decision regarding a secret Eastern European Mailing list) were repeatadly involved in a coordinated reverting of me and other editors in and block shopping until most of them were finally stopped by the ArbCom decision. Better late than never I suppose... Their agenda appears to have been tendentious editing of Poland-related articles, including but not limited to profoundly anti-German versions of historical events, by means of removing the sourced edits from respectable and reliable sources, stonewalling the new edits and taking turns in reverting such edits with no valid reason given at all, and replacing them with unsourced, highly subjective or sometimes even inflammatory text of their own beliefs on the events, or simply rewriting the sourced statement to the exact opposite, and misrepresenting the views of the original referenced author this way. Typically following these 'edits' every time is the refusal to discuss the edits on the talk page, or limiting it to a superficial level by stereotypically claiming in a short sentence 'there is no consensus' , 'I dont think it improves the article' (no reasoning why), or that the sources are 'controversial' (again, no reasoning why they would be..) and then proceeding to reverting/removing. The evidence that he has cooperated with that group in the past is overwhelming and everywhere, and I see no reason why not bring the preparation of the same behaviour to the attention of the ArbCom, and notify the editor in advance of that.

The evidence of disruptive behaviour of his disruptive behaviour in the article is easy to gather, I will only show a few examples from the Bombing of Wieluń article only: - removing NPOV wording, vulgar edit comments - removal of sourced information - another auto-revert, no meaningful reasoning given - the same, accusation of POV pushing, - again rewriting into to non-neutral tone, and the best of them all, removing even Polish sources of the events, without reasoning... - reverting also other editor, note the irony/hypocriticism of 'please don't remove sourced text without discussion' - again rewriting the sourced text to a non-neutral tone...

His comment on the article talk page Talk:Bombing_of_Wieluń#Kurfust.27s_edits 'I disagree with the recent edits by user Kurfust and in my opinion they worsened the article considerably. If nobody disagrees i indent to reverse them.' is a classic example and should be quoted in Wikipedia:I just don't like it

Circumstantial evidence. Also noteworthy is the attitude Loosmark had Talk:Bombing_of_Wieluń#RfC:_Neutrality_issues_-_Bombing_of_Wielu.C5.84 when I asked for third party comment. Loosmark also kept targeting my edits harassing me by following me to articles in which he had obviously no interest beforehand at all, see his reverting in Bismarck class battleship and especially his mass revert - entirely regardless of content! - clearly a disruptive edit - in [15] the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article. I especially encourage you to read his 'reasoning' and the follow-up discussion in that article, see: Talk:Messerschmitt_Bf_109#Kurf.C3.BCrst.27s_edits. It mirrors exactly the behaviour in the Wielun article talk page, under the pretext of 'discussion'. BTW neutral editors have agreed, and agree to this day with my edits in both the Wielun and Bf 109 articles..

I suggest that the ArbCom should expand its investigation to the possible role of Loosmark in that Eastern European Mailing list group, especially in view of the indirect evidence of his coordinated 'editorial work' with blocked EEML members Jacurek, Radeksz, Piotrus in the articles Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Poland and the Bombing of Wieluń. Further evidence is their coordinated behaviour with said blocked members on the ANI page, where the tag team tried block shopping against me at least half a dozens times (denied BTW, but the coordination is again obvious), and as far as I am aware, several other editors. I also suggest searching Loosmark's edit history for ANI in the past year for further circumstantial evidence to be found. Kurfürst (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I will reply to this as soon as I have a 15 minutes' break.  Dr. Loosmark  09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Further addendum to User:Loosmark's general credibility - allegadly he doens't even know what that Eastern European Mailing list is, having written 'I have not "closely cooperated with members of the EEML in a similar manner" (whatever that is)' vs. see him coming posting at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Question_for_FloNight and supporting his mailing list buddies in the fashion I previously described. Kurfürst (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein the long rant above clearly demonstrates that Kurfust continues with his battlefield mentality and defamatory accusations. The ArbCom made a very detailed investigation of the EEML case and i was in no shape or form part of the EEML. I was not even mentioned by the ArbCom. As such I request Kurfurst immediately withdraws these accusation. Also the diffs he's presenting above about my alleged disruptive behavior are from June, July and August 2009(!), he threw much worst stuff at me but I'm not going to dig all those old diff, I have better things to do. Those issues were settled long ago (with warnings to both sides if i remember correctly) and bygones should be bygones. Next as far I remember I reverted edits on the Bismarck class battleship because they were in direct contradiction with the analysis of the leading specialist on battleship armour, I presented this source at the time [[16]]. If you have time please read and you will see that Bismarck protection wasn't as effective as those of other modern battleship. At the moment the article is still very biased in favor of Bismarck but I have stopped editing it because I got tired of arguing with Kurfurst months ago. I don't remember the exact reason I undid the changes on Messerschmitt Bf 109 article, but most issues there were discussed and addressed on the article's talk page (where Kurfurst engaged in edit wars and battlefield behavior with other editors, not me. i'm not sure but i think he was even blocked for it). Anyway these things happened many months ago and neither the Bismarck article or Messerschmitt are in the AE topic anyway. This case is very simple and it's not about old disagreements, it's either we allow people to make defamatory accusations like he's throwing at me (like that i'm coordinated by EEML to revert, or that want i to promote "profoundly anti-German versions of historical events" (sic,), that i push my beliefs etc etc.) or we don't. If he has any problems with my editing he's free to formally complain in the proper places, but using talk pages of article for settling old grudges should not be allowed, it's as simple as that.  Dr. Loosmark  10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to the latest post of Kurfurst. ok this is getting beyond ridiculous. I didn't know about the existance of the EEML before that case was opened. The accusation that Kurfurst made was that I was cooperating with the EEML in a similar manner (implication being in a manner which caused their ban). I have not done anything of the kind. I don't get what is the link he provides above supposed to prove.  Dr. Loosmark  10:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Block shopping and buzzwords are on the repertoire again. :D We have already discussed the edit history of Loosmark on those articles, I think they speak for themselves; Loosmark specifically stated in the said article's talk page that he intends to continue with the reverting of sourced edits. I think it all speaks for itself and I wish to add no more to this matter, as it already took more time away than it merits. Kurfürst (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Block shopping? I have not asked for you to be blocked, I just requested Sandstein to stop you from defaming me. What sanction would he eventually choose is not of my concern as long as it works. Btw just because an edit is sourced it doesn't mean that it cannot be reverted. Sometimes the source is bad, or not properly used, or undue weight etc, etc.  Dr. Loosmark  10:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are block shopping, you do this every time whenever you want to remove a sourced part from an article you don't like, you just change the pretext. Your recent behaviour exactly mirrors your disruptive behaviour in the Bf 109 article in August 2009. Firstly you reverted all my edits under the transparant pretext of 'worsening the article' (sounds familiar..?), and thereafter refused to give any reasoning when I and other asked. This was immidiately followed by an (unsuccessfull) blocking request at ANI, peppered with insults, calling me a liar, and finally jumped on a neutral editor who was trying to mitigate see: [17][18][19]

[20][21][22] [23][24]. Within a week of that incident, you were reporting another editor at ANI, surprisingly the 'problem' being again sources you don't like, and hoping to get him block; the participating members in the debate are again Loosmark and the now blocked members of the EEML... no surprise again. Three days later, obviously following my contributions you have followed me to the supercharger article (to which you have again showed no interest) to revert my edits once again, claiming them to be 'vandalism'. Clearly again it had nothing to do with the content, but the editor (me). Again a week later you have another similiar steretypic accusation of another editor, Talk:Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia#Faustian_POV_pushing, the subject again similar, some Polish related messacre, again the same pattern of removing well referenced edits by the members of the EMLL tag team, the participants again: Loosmark and two of the EEML members, Jacurek and Radek.... Your confrontational pattern of anti-German edits, shared with the blocked EEML members continued in other articles as well.

Sorry for the lenghty examples, but it needs to be put clear to the unaware parties who get in contact with you the first time. You have long time abuse pattern of being tendentiously engaged in edit wars in various articles over German-Polish, Polish-Ukrainian, Polish-Russian etc. history and relations, 'coincidentally' showing up at the same time and supporting the blocked EEML members in their reverts and at ANI reports, following editors into other articles, harassing them and trying to get them blocked at every opportunity. I think numerous examples were shown of this, and I think you have continued this long enough. Harassment of members should not be tolerated. It is not 'defamation' to mention that I shall bring the ArbCom's notice to your provable actions, its just stating the facts and giving you a fair warning in advance. Your cooperation with the blocked EEML members is blatantly obvious, you turn up at the same time in dozens of cases, and pursue the same agenda. No editor is required to assume good faith after a long and clear pattern to the contrary. Kurfürst (talk) 12:00, 27 January 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.

Protection of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination)

I understand why you protected this page, but are you sure it's wise? This will just lead to people ranting about The Cabal, etc. Would you be upset if I unprotected it? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, go ahead if you think that's better.  Sandstein  21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Keep your fingers crossed :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

Hey, I notice that this unblock discussion seems to be waiting on additional input from you ... did you want to deny/approve, or should it be passed on, or the results of the ANI simply be inserted by anybody? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. No, apparently he made an unblock-on-hold himself.  Sandstein  04:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Sandstein/Archives/2010/January, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored, thanks.) Ikip 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Still around

Thanks, I'll do my best. --Factuarius (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Coutureslimdown

Please unprotect or unblock the page for Samantha Schobel, she has done several astonishing things in the weight loss industry which is why she is in the movie "the inner weigh" with bob proctor, featured on CNN and MSNBC etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamesPlay (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Coutureslimdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). No, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your advertising.  Sandstein  05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it's only a 24 hr block...

...and because of that, I'm not necessarily willing to over-ride over here. I did not put the unblock on hold. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Dunham picture

THANK YOU for finally replacing that awful shot of the top of his head with a nice-looking pic. The article's been needing it for some time. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank the man's lawyer who sent it to WP:OTRS. That was the first image release e-mail I've ever read which had the flair of a Microsoft EULA.  Sandstein  14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

close

Thanks for your close of the second AfD at George Lee (British politician). I believe there is a minor technical snafu, as the talk page now points one to the discussion of the first AfD (though it says it was a no consensus close, intending to point I imagine to the second AfD close). I would have fixed it for you, but am not sure quite how, so thought I might simply mention it. Tx again for your good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Sr.

Hi Sandstein, I just edit conflicted with you as I was adding my !vote to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson, Sr.. I'm pasting it below in case it might have altered your thinking with respect to the close, which I do not think should have been closed as a merge. Incidentally I just pulled Sean Wilentz's book The Rise of American Democracy off my shelf and there's a paragraph in there about Andrew Jackson Sr. Here's my AfD comment, in view of which I guess I'm asking you to reconsider your close:

• Strong Keep. Sorry, but this is one of those discussions that makes Wikipedia look rather silly. This man was the father of one of the five or so most important political figures in the history of the United States. Any biography of Jackson (and there are hundreds going back nearly 200 years) is going to discuss his father at least in part (and no doubt speculatively to some degree), meaning he has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish his notability. It would be extremely easy for us to write a serviceable (albeit probably brief) bio of this man which would be useful inasmuch at it provides some background to President Jackson's heritage. If it makes more sense in the end to merge it into an article on Family of Andrew Jackson then so be it, but we can hardly decide that here when that article does not even exist. Given that we routinely keep biographical articles simply because someone is mentioned a few times in a newspaper, the idea that we would not keep an article on the father of one of the most written-about human beings in world history is absurd. And merging to Andrew Jackson is not a good idea—small details about Jackson's father do not belong in the seventh American president's main bio article, as there's already too much to cover in his life as it is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One other quick note, adding to the difficulty here is the fact that Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson was not discussed in the AfD and that article is essentially on a par with Andrew Jackson, Sr.. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that weakens the "merge" consensus somewhat, but not sufficiently so as to make me change my close. Feel free to note your opinion on the AfD talk page or elsewhere. You can still try and achieve consensus against a merger outside the AfD.  Sandstein  07:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, and it's not really your fault for closing it that way, but that AfD discussion was held at a rather low-level of clue in my opinion. I literally turned around from my desk, grabbed the first two books I could think of (both incredibly well regarded) and found a couple of paragraphs on Jackson Sr. which can be used to source (and slightly expand on) some of the existing material (and these are general histories of the Jacksonian era, not biographies which would have more detail). The delete/merge claims in the AfD boiled down to "he's not notable," but per our notability guidelines and the way we generally interpret them that just isn't correct. As someone who actually does history, it's frustrating to see a discussion that ends up deciding it makes sense to reduce our coverage of a historical topic, particularly when a number of the discussants (and no disrespect to them) don't seem to have much knowledge of the topic. Anyhow thanks for replying and I'll probably leave some talk page notes. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement's talk page.
Message added 07:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

i think you've made an error as to whether the case is closed (it is), and whether tothwolf attempting to OUT me counts as incivility. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)