![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sandstein, in your estimation, when an editor calls into doubt the quality of a source, is it the duty of the person using the source to bring it to RS/N or the duty of the person casting doubt on the quality? Unomi ( talk) 19:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi's statement that RSN issued a "finding" is incorrect, and his statement that IMJ is uninvolved in I-P issues is also incorrect. On the other hand, an actual RSN regular who is actually uninvolved (to the point of having zero edits, to my knowledge) considers the source to be possibly reliable, and certainly reliable enough to bear mention with specific attribution. You wouldn't know that from Unomi's statements, of course, because he's got a dog in this fight. Just saying! Hipocrite ( talk) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus in that RSN discussion either in favor of or against the site's reliability. The entire issue is a content dispute and does not require arbitration enforcement. Unomi, please do not file frivolous AE reports again, and if you want to continue discussing this issue, take it off my talk page. Sandstein 05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, just wondering why you deleted the page Francois Raffoul. If you look at it objectively (17 books total as authored, edited and translated, 40 articles, 100 lectures and keynotes, named a "Rainmaker" at LSU, Book series editor), I think it is fair to say it is notable, or at least as notable as comparable pages on wikipedia... Would you consider reinstating it?-- Lesbossons ( talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein,
I'd like to bring to your attention that the other party may be in violation of her interaction ban. She commented about me and my English skills at AN/I. Please check it. Regards,-- Gilisa ( talk) 05:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, please re-factor or substantiate:
Cordially, Unomi ( talk) 09:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that it had to come to this. I hope that we can move forward in a fashion more in line with the 5 pillars. Unomi ( talk) 10:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein, i`m reported that blocking user:Direktor has evaded the 48 hrs., reversing some pages for the Republic of Dubrovnik and Dubrovnik, this is the link of Direktor IP 83.131.220.241. [3] -- 186.105.66.150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.66.150 ( talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a recent and rather interesting example of the interaction ban enforcement [4]. The blocked user is very valued, contest contributor, who submitted around 100 feature pictures.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I was hoping you could give me some insight on the intricacies of WP:OUTING. Would posting what you believe to be a user's IP address(es) on a user talk page and using this to infer their country of residence apply as a violation of this policy? Furthermore, would posting specific accusations of sockpuppetry (ie: I think user XX is a sockpuppet of user YY) break this rule too when not submitted as a SPI, but rather on a user talk page? Thanks for your help, Breein1007 ( talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I sent you email again. You did not get one last time. If you would not get this one either, may I please ask you to check on your spam folder? Thank you for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sandstein. Can you point to policy backing this edit? Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You might want to lock that talk page as the IP user is apparently not too happy with our unblocking policies. De728631 ( talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Some aspects have calmed down since I started WP:ANI#Enough but not all, including the new AE report/request. I was actually considering a 31 hour full protect on some articles to try and separate things, but on review it seems like it's moved into project and user talk space conflict largely, so even article protection won't help much.
I don't know that an ARBPIA enforcement spree will particularly help, or is useful, but your AE experience may be relevant to judging that.
Let me know what you're thinking, I'm looking for input and consciously not doing anything until I get a good night's rest and review again. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1 (
talk) is wishing you a Happy
Purim! This greeting promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Backdated timestamp to allow archiving. Sandstein 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Two people have commented in support of his complaint that the interaction ban doesn't cover making reference to the other party, with one of them saying it seems like a severe overreaction on your part. I have put it on hold if you would like to comment. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
[6] Does the user need to clear their cache or something technical like that? Cptnono ( talk) 08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sand, 1) I'm concerned that 2 seperate AEs are being merged. Can we try to seperate them out? I fear that someone might miss comments about themselves as they are not in the right section. 2) As we've had calm and collected conversations before regarding contentious I/P editors (see above "Content on User Pages"), I'm a little suprised you would support topic banning me. NickCT ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Would I be able to edit the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) without being blocked again? That includes removing material written by You-Know-Who.
Note that I was editing that article before the interaction ban was suggested.
124.170.123.137 ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Me. Sorry, that was an honest mistake. Factomancer ( talk) 10:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
So I can alter or remove material as long as it wasn't added by She(or He)-Who-Will-Remain-Nameless? What if the material was added by someone else then You-Know-Who corrected the spelling or performed some minor alteration on it? Would removing that material count as a revert?
Georgewilliamherbert, who wrote the ban, has said:
I didn't intend to establish a standard that you have to identify the source of any particular text you want to edit and ensure it's not the editor you're prohibited from interacting with. It's extremely hard to meet the latter level of certainty that you're not touching that other person's edits at all.
But that seems to be the standard you are applying here. It seems that now I can't safely edit any significantly large article without going through its entire history and finding out the provenance of each character. Factomancer ( talk) 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear to me what your summary is intended to mean. Are you proposing that I recuse myself altogether from returning problematic hooks from the queue to the suggestions page? If so, I very much doubt I can comply with this request. Removing hooks from the queue for further discussion is part of my responsibility as a DYK administrator, not to return problematic hooks would be tantamount to negligence. I should add that merely returning a hook to the suggestions page in no way gives me an unfair advantage and cannot be considered as an abuse of the tools. It simply means the hook will be subject to closer scrutiny, which surely cannot be construed as in any way harmful to the project.
If on the other hand you simply meant I should not outright delete hooks from the queue but be sure instead to return them to the discussion page, I am certainly happy to assent to that. Although I felt at the time I was justified in deleting Mbz's hook, I quickly acknowledged it was an error of judgement - which we all inevitably make from time to time - and from the fracas that eventuated I had already resolved never to attempt this shortcut again. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The question seems to be whether DYK has the same expectation as WP:AFD. Admins closing deletion discussions are charged with determining consensus, but at the same time are expected to separate this administrative role from their editorial role. I don't believe admins could argue one position in a deletion discussion, for instance, and then also close it saying that their decision to close was insignificant because they were simply enacting consensus. If DYK is different then perhaps that is a matter of its history, but in theory, at least, they seem similar. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Still sure about your decision to sanction Mbz1 and "advise" Gatoclass, Sandstein? Breein1007 ( talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement for deletion, using Twinkle. Unfortunately, the protection of the pages has prevented them being properly tagged. I am requesting you, as an admin, to edit through the protection to properly tag the project page. Thanks. DuncanHill ( talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
To my shame I cannot keep up with the never-ending sprawl of places where given issues are discussed, so could you please notify this: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Desmond Travers at the appropriate venues for monitoring. M.S.A.Irvine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked per username violations, no idea why, I am utterly out of touch with Israel-Palestine stuff. Guy ( Help!) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to your attention this edit please. The user calls the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), "worthless article" that was not deleted only "due to the prevalence of bloc voting". The user is well aware of the fact that I have started the article, and contributed the most to it . This is the article that was nominated for the deletion by the very same user. The most heated interactions between the two of us have occurred on the article's talk and the article's deletion request. I understand the edit restrictions imposed on me by my interaction ban as being restricted to make any comment on anything concerning the other party that could cause negative feelings and the wish to respond by the other party. The statement in question did cause negative feelings and the wish to respond. Thank you for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
So a comment like this edit posted by Mbz1 above, which insults and is intended to insult the author of the article (Mbz1), as well as anyone who does not accept Factomancer's personal judgment (it's a worthless article) and referring to others as a "voting bloc," (insulting) does not appear as a battlefield and a "baiting" post to you? Mbz1 is asked to swallow what is clearly (meant to be) a personal insult at the risk of violating the ban herself? Stellarkid ( talk) 06:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this edit a breach of Mbz's topic ban? It is worth noting that this edit is part of an edit war, in which the same text has been inserted and deleted by several editors over the past couple of days. RolandR ( talk) 10:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Sandstein, I fear your topic ban on Mbz1 is not being respected ... I am currently in an edit dispute with another editor at article Rothschild family and correctly using the talk page to resolve this. I have just user:Mbz1 noticed has reverted a Zionist/Israel issue] without even bothering to discuss at the talk page and making allegations of POV. After all that's gone on over the last few weeks I fear Mbz1 is not getting the message. Regarding my input to that article, I am avoiding a tit-for tat edit war by using the talk page and will not revert for a day t allow discussion. Thanks Vexorg ( talk) 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question Sandstein: what is the purpose of the 12 hour clause in the interaction ban, and why is it not being enforced? Thanks, Breein1007 ( talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting how this process works. A highly partisan editor in the I/P disputes, in this case RolandR, informs on Mbz1 to Sandstein. RolandR has nothing to lose, because if Mbz1 gets blocked, RolandR gets rid of an editing opponent, and if she does not get get blocked RolandR loses nothing and is no worse off than before. Sandstein, and other administrators, in playing along with this revolting process of editing opponents snitching on each other, encourage editors to continue to act like nasty children, and exactly in situations when adult behavior would be so valuable. The entire process is very dysfunctional. - 173.52.124.223 ( talk) 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
How long does the discussion page on a deleted page remains for all to see?-- Lesbossons ( talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, if it is not too much of an imposition I would like to request that you monitor my edits and comment directly on any problematic behavior on my part, no matter how slight. Best Regards, Unomi ( talk) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 05:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Noticed you were the one who deleted the Dog Police article. I have more information on it. According to Youtube account melslifetv the song was later adapted into a television pilot staring Adam Sandler & Jeremy Piven early in their careers back in 3/30/90 also called Dog Police. That plus the original song and band which was well known and infamous, if not successful, on MTV makes me want to say reopen the article with the limited information presented and follow it up with a Stub notice, and hopefully someone with some concrete information out there can fill in the missing information. The Skunk ( talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
At first I did not care so much about topic ban (I hardly edit in on this topic anyway), but because it was enforced so vigorously here's my official appeal:
As it explained here "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say that users subject to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy ..."
May I please ask you to provide the differences to confirm me repeatedly violate policy in the topic area of my ban?
Sandstein, I am contacting you here because you seem to be the most involved in the recent flare-ups in the IP area. I saw this edit summary on my watchlist, and I thought it was very inappropriate, until I saw what was before it. I can see that the user is frustrated, but it is no excuse for this behavior. I take offense as a Wikipedian, and a marxist. I am not asking for any action but to warn Mbz1, and maybe try to cool her down a bit. I was going to post this on her talkpage, but this was her response to another user who did. Best. Yazan ( talk) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Bickering collapsed. Get this discussion off my talk page; it does not relate to me. Sandstein 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Mbz1s comments are obvious personal attacks and admin action against this user is needed: "because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick" "I wonder why when i looked at your user page I had a very strong urge to wash my hands" These comments are unacceptable. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Yazan, please stand by while I evaluate this matter. Sandstein 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I was being a bit brusque. Once again, I understand why you would extend a topic ban to Mbz1 but I do not understand why a topic ban, or even a permanent ban, would not be extended to Vexorg, who is openly disseminating hate speech and promoting wild conspiracy theories, right on that actual AE discussion page. If you have any insight into that, I would appreciate it. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Sandstein. Mbz1 has been reported for two very offensive messages posted at editors talk pages. It looks like a quick admin involvement would prevent those reports from escalating. Thanks Vexorg ( talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed as redundant to one of the above sections. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Does this violate this? I'm not sure it does, as it is not about the I/P conflict as much as it about I/P issues. I leave it to your good judgement. Best NickCT ( talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Nick. Already dealt with above Vexorg ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
This appears to be a clear violation of G-Dett's topic ban (which includes Talk pages of articles related to I-P articles) as a result of he Samaria ArbComm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.79.68 ( talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Sandstein,
I can only imagine the level of your 'sigh' while reading this, but it's clear these people just are not going to let up with their disruptive meldramtic and largely substanceless reports at ANI. Here's the latest one and it's targeted against myself this time. I've left a brief comment but I really am going to avoid getting embroiled in such a ridiculous waste of time yet again. Wikipedia is quickly becoming a huge kindergarten and I want no part of this aspect of it. I just want to edit and while I realise my edits are controversial by editors of a certain political bent I cannot do anything but stick by my convictions. You are no doubt aware of the close relationship between Mbz1 and Stellarkid. I shall leave you to attend to this new report or get another admin to attend to it. I am not interested in joining yet another pissing war between two factions on Wikipedia. Thanks and you have my sympathies. Vexorg ( talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the Carlos Latuff cartoon image on RolandR's user page, it could easily be interpreted as referring to Israelis as Nazis because many Latuff cartoons do just that [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
The caption included with the image on RolandR's talk page, is not part of the image as Latuff created it. The caption was added by someone else. The link with the caption in no way supports the quote [18]
It seems possible that the Latuff cartoon, combined with the quote, was included in a way so that users on the P side of the I/P disputes would understand that the "Nazis" referred to are Israeli Jews, while all others would understand it as a repudiation on Nazi-like hate speech against Jews. I think it is almost certain that Latoff, when he created this cartoon, intended it to depict Israelis as modern day Nazis. 173.52.124.223 ( talk) 15:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have appealed against your prohibition of my use of certain images. RolandR ( talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
New York City Public Schools, 165.155.192.81 ( talk · contribs), three weeks from the end of a year's schoolblock, claim that you have agreed they should be unblocked. Is that true? They were actually blocked by PhilKnight. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Unomi ( talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{ subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Also, you are very welcome to join and watchlist WP:IPCOLL. Unomi ( talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sand,
Just want to register with you that I think policing user pages is a waste of your time and energy. I've notice this is second time in recent history you've objected to and tried to eliminate content on user pages.
I think Mbz correctly identified the relevant policies as being WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:UPNO in Roland's case. I wonder though if WP:NOTSOAPBOX was originally intended for user pages, and I'd point out that WP:UPNO could be used to object to any number of items on users pages. I don't think any really clear policy existed for this sanction. I would make two points to you -
1)Policing user pages (which have a de facto private nature to them) is dictatorial.
2)Policing user pages rarely acts to significantly improve wikipedia. Normal WP users never see em, and editors only see them if they choose to look.
For the record, I don't think Roland's image was particularly helpful. Best, NickCT ( talk) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Mr.Sand I have found over the years that Wikipedia is literally loaded with misinformation. Recently I have found an article on Nutrition which I was hopefully going to use as a citation for something else. In reading only the first 1/4 of this nonsense I felt compelled to make note within the article that it if full of typos, gibberish, misinformation, and at some points unmitigated ignorance. I was immediately chided by yourself to make my comments in the “TALK” section which almost nobody reads. This does not cure the problem. Innocent minds may use the misinformation presented and load it into their mental computers. Your deletion of my correction demonstrates your compliance in this educational misconduct. Please either notify the author to modify this article so that it no longer contains informational errors or remove it until someone takes the time to actually edit the article for content rather than merely grammar. The last straw was that WATER could be DILUTED by fiber.
Please make it your mission to assist those seeking enlightenment rather than acting like a police officer handing out a minor infraction ticket. Your effort to perpetuate such nonsense questions your presence. Thanks for listening Hogwash eliminator ( talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The current artikel is tottal incompliet Air Bases and Aircraft are missing , there are also much wrong informations (for exampel Berne is a civil Airport, the F-5E are still every weekday in use as fighteraircrafts). Sorry but the newspaper FACTS as reliable sources is just a bad jocke. Have Look at the German and the Italian version, Thes Versions have the full qualety for wikipedia. I knew my engilsh is not well, but with this wrong informations in the Articel i cant say nothing. My Informations are the Truht because i work sinc 1996 for the Swiss Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The following [19] was added to User:Factomancer's page today.
It links to [20] in which she argues that User:Mbz1 should be blocked.
In my opinion it is a violation of her interaction ban. I bring it to your attention here. Thank you. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. I don't know anything about user interaction bans, but seem to remember you imposing a few. Mbz1 left me a message asking if I could propose an interaction ban between herself and Vexorg. I have no idea how or where to make such a proposal. Can you help? ← George talk 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No action taken. If you feel the need to continue to discuss this among yourselves, which I strongly suggest you don't, please do so elsewhere. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Factomancer ( talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Everybody, stop the bickering. I won't take arbitration enforcement action on account of this quote alone. While it is true that divisive political content, especially related to the I-P conflict, is in principle unwelcome on user pages per general policy and WP:ARBPIA, this long and rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag. Nonetheless, displaying lengthy political opinions on one's user page is a pretty strong signal to me that the user in question is here primarily to push a particular point of view, and this may count strongly against them in the event that an administrator must decide whether to sanction them for actual misconduct. (But then, so does this sort of sniping at each other. Get back to work on articles, please.) Sandstein 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Would just like to remind everyone that Sandstein did not require RolandR to remove his support for "anti-Zionist" on this web page, just the picture of the crossed-out Israeli flag as against Wikipedia policy. As long as RolandR and others can be considered "anti-Zionist" there is no reason why I cannot be considered "anti-anti-Zionist" without violating any policy. Nowhere do I have a crossed-out Palestinian flag on my userpage, not would I ever have one. Anti-zionists would preclude the existence of Israel, but Zionists do not preclude the existence of any other people. "Zionists" accepted Resolution 181 that would have created an Arab (Palestinian) homeland. Palestinian Arabs on the other hand, did not. The Arabs wanted everything for themselves, and such that Jews were not allowed to worship in the holy places that were controlled by Jordan. I do not consider those quotes to be divisive but educational. There are numerous RS that say exactly the same thing including the EUMC working definition of antisemitism as noted on my page. There is no parallel with the material on RolandR's page. In my opinion this discussion is clearly a matter of testing this administrator to see if he will put out a tit-for-tat ruling. However the analogy is incorrect and the rationale used for banning the image from RolandR's page is not the same at all. Stellarkid ( talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Hallo Ich habe jetzt meine ergänzungen der beiden Englischen Versionen der MirageIII und der Swiss Air Force auf den diskusionsseiten eingetragen. Leider ist es auf der Orginalseite Swiss air Force recht viel fehelend oder gar falsch so das das nicht mit ein paar Zahlen oder kleinen Ergänzungen korrigiert ist. Ich hoffe sehr das sich dem jemand mit guten englischkentnissen annimmt.
Sehr schade finde es ich auch das vom Artikel Flugzeugkaverne keine Englische Version existiert. Meine englischkentnisse sind leider nicht genügen um da eine Englische version zu machen, ausserdem ist es sehr schwer Quellennachweise zu machen da über dies anlagen nur wenige Dokumente öffentlich sind. Vieleicht könnte man jemanden mit dem Sprachlichen können dazu motivieren ? Gruss Swiss testpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
[21]-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. I am not sure what to do about this editor who is harassing me now. Please check out his contributions --there are only a handful and totally directed at me. Also please check out the edit summaries on my talk page. Would appreciate your help with this one. Thank you. Stellarkid ( talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I must be druuunk to have forgotten to give you his name! ;) Stellarkid ( talk) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the edit notice should include instructions for both the enforcement request template and the enforcement appeal template. I did this here, but the actual edit notice is fully protected. nableezy - 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Found it...
Sandstein 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this edit problematic? Unomi ( talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear! Is the impending carnage avoidable? ← ZScarpia 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess you will delete my message, as you've done last two times, but I do not know who else I may ask, so here it is. May I please ask you, if it is a proper thing to do to try to convince the editors, who had something good to say about me at my appeal to change their comments as it was done in those edits [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]? Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Why did you ban me without first telling me to remove this? I think this ban is really strange and I'm asking you to reconsider. I think there was a dispute whether it's WP:BLP. I didn't see it that way, and you could have explained to me as a moderator. I would gladly have removed it. I was never given a chance or a warning by a moderator. 3RR and the sockpupptery (which I deny! it was a mistake!) are long time ago. I'm not a very active user, I don't know if I would have made more edits or not, but I contributed to a lot of articles and I'm afraid people will delete my contributions. They have done so on a consistent basis from time to time. Please I'll gladly accept a restriction so that I won't engage in war editing which sometimes happens, but change the ban to something more reasonable... I don't really want my work to get ruined, and I also don't know what the ban includes - how wide is this scope? 99% of my edit history had to do with history and with Israel - what does it mean Arab Israeli conflict. I don't think it should have been done this way - it looks artbitrary and harsh. Thanks. Amoruso ( talk) 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Comment by Ynhockey: The sanction is puzzling to me as well, and appears ill-advised for the following reasons:
In other words, treating BLP as a sacred cow and banning anyone who remotely touches it, while letting other editors get away with just about anything with only "strong warnings" and the like (speaking of which, you might want to look at the Vexorg case because you gave him a strong warning and on the same day he started violating policies again), is not going to help improve Wikipedia, in my honest opinion. I request that you review and lift the ban, and give Amoruso a chance to make productive contributions to Wikipedia, something that he was not given with the swift and sweeping sanction which now effectively prevents him from editing. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by ZScarpia: I would agree that the ban would be excessive if it was just for a BLP violation, but the impression that I have is that it is for behavioural problems generally. Nobody would argue that "Amoruso is a prolific contributor" (albeit he has only just started to edit again after a longish break), but whether those contributions are neutral and well written would be a different matter. To me it is clear that he has great difficulty dealing with points of view other than his own and the editors expressing them. ← ZScarpia 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Appeal to revoke decision based on having a WP:RS for admittedly-misplaced WP:BLP issueI sincerely apologize again for saying what I did. What I wrote was over the top, as I felt user:Nableezy and user:unomi were relentless with trying to taint Israeli articles with the term "occupied" - they were saying this is the universal truth by an "objective" ICJ, and this what brought the bad exaggeration. It is not my habit to exaggerate when dealing with someone termed as "X" by "source name". I feel a little that Nableezy was being protective of calling someone for that behavior, which is a bit of a serious issue on its own when Nableezy knows who that person is and that's he's under a lot of criticism for an alleged extreme anti Israeli decision and for being on the panel for alleged bias (all supported by WP:RS). But I went to check my sources about the ICJ decision and I found the actual source. The source is referenced in scholarly works. It's referenced in Florida Law Review 57 Fla. L. Rev. 717, MENDING THE "FENCE": HOW TREATMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE HAGUE HAS REDEFINED THE DOCTRINE OF SELF- DEFENSE, page 13. The source is: "The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2004, at 20. The Jerusalem Post in an WP:RS. It talks about the case and says.. "'Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." No relevance. I see the words, but even knowing that the International Court of Justice would rule against Israel, I cannot fully believe they were written. With these words, the ICJ decision joins the parade of anti-Semitic infamy, along with such milestones as the Dreyfus trial...". This would all have been fleshed out if the discussion continued for more than the few hours it did. It would have been wrong and it won't continue now, but it's an RS for BLP purposes. I still won't reintroduce it, in fact I REMOVED every reference to the word, but having an WP:RS takes it out of WP:BLP sanction. I again apologize and will not edit that specific article again, and will edit more calmly without edit-warring, but I think this shows that it wasn't capricious and that it was based on WP:RS. This is not the only Israeli sources about the court's opinion to this regard, but it's an WP:RS that I was familiar with, and it stuck with me. It does not condone saying that, because I realize it's not helpful and I should have controlled that, but it's still an WP:RS so it shouldn't be dealt this way IMHO. Kind regards, Amoruso ( talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
|
I am collapsing the discussion above because Amoruso has also made an appeal at WP:AE. So as not to duplicate the discussion I will respond there to the salient points raised here. Sandstein 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
[30] It appears that User:Vexorg and User:Beyond My Ken are weighing in as "uninvolved" editors. There is no way that Vexorg can be considered uninvolved and Beyond My Ken has weighed in at the noticeboard for Vexorg [31] making his position of support for Vexorg very clear. (Looks like Vexorg will be scrolling off the page and will get away scott-free this time as well, oh well) Stellarkid ( talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This appeal has been closed. Per this there was a suggestion of further discussion around a possible mentorship, if it would help. Mbz1 also contacted me privately and urged me to ping you. What are your thoughts? I'll watch here or we can do this on my page or wherever you like. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed your award. Do not use barnstars for pursuing disputes with others and please find something else to do. Sandstein 21:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed to interaction-blocked FOTG for breaking the ban. Mbz1 has just messaged me asking if this constitutes a break. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave to catch a plane so I was wondering if you could take a look in the interim. Sorry! SGGH ping! 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein! It has come to my attention that an uninvolved administrator has agreed with a recommendation of formal mentoring for Mbz1 in place of any block/topic ban. I hereby offer to mentor Mbz1 and ask that, provided she agrees, you withdraw the sanctions in question. Alternatively, Lar has agreed to mentor Mbz1, but he also said that he might not be available during problematic times. In any case, we can probably work something out, and even bring another person in. I will also use this opportunity to reiterate that I strongly believe that any kind of long-term sanction for an editor who has a history of positive contributions to Wikipedia is counter-productive, before other measures have been tried, including mentoring. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I just wanted to let you know that Gilabrand is editing I/P topics again in contravention of her topic ban.
Factomancer is harassing and stalking me, and lying to boot. This is getting ridiculous. I have had no dealings with her for weeks now. When is this person going to stop the savage campaign against other editors on Wikipedia. She is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I did not remove any sections about the Munich film, I did not add any material about somebody's daughter being killed and I am entitled to write anything I want on Zionism pages where no conflict is mentioned. Her accusations are false. Her attempts to scare away other editors, insistence that pages belong to her and incivility toward everyone, including a whole host of administrators, is serious cause for concern. When is this behavior going to end??? Doesn't anyone see what is happening here. Is everyone blind???-- Geewhiz ( talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
He's still doing the weird date formatting thing in contravention of your earlier block. -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can I ask what duration you had in mind for Nableezy's "limited" topic ban? As an aside, I agree regarding Shuki and AE complaints/reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein... Constance Demby here... and it's been some time since we had a discussion... We last talked in Dec 09, and then I got really busy with career concerns. I had sent new information for my page, and there were items that needed to be edited, changed, etc, and I finally now have time to devote to my Wiki page and make it the way it's supposed to be! which honestly, I did not understand nor was I aware of the Wiki rules when I first started posting to my page ... and is why all that trouble and bad reviews on the talk page occured. no one had told me how Wikipedia works... Now I know, and now I have a new producer who want to promote me, and I need to fix my page the way it should be according to Wiki standards and guidelines. But now I cant find the page where the new bio was entered, and where there were several comments from you
so to sum up... I need to get my wiki page edited and up to standard, and I would appreciate your counsel and direction as to where I find the page where I entered all my info in Dec of 2009... thanks so much for your help and guidance, much appreciated!
and I just found this: when I tried to go to < http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Constance_Demby&diff=prev&oldid=329772242>
Wikimedia Foundation
Error
العربيOur servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.
thanks for you help Sandstein, much appreciated
Constance
66.215.99.9 (
talk) 05:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
hi again and this is the page that I was looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Constance_Demby&diff=next&oldid=329772242 it just came up. now,I need to understand the guidelines on the two sides of the page and how to re-edit and re-submit the material.
thanks .... Constance Demby 66.215.99.9 ( talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Good news you have something to block me for again Factomancer ( talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unequal implementation of a supposedly bilateral interaction ban. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
== Truly pathetic ==
You can take any criticism without threatening me with a "community" ban. I've contributed numerous quality articles to Wikipedia - more than you have recently. Shows how little you care about the encyclopedia and how this is just an exercise in imposing your authority for your own gratification. I've removed my ANI report so you can't get the satisfaction of banning me.
Factomancer (
talk) 16:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Come on, explain yourself. You said that you thought I needed a community ban. Well, make your case. I'm listening.
Factomancer (
talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not waiting 8 hours, sorry. I don't know if that even applies to everyone or just to the editors under the ban, but I don't really care to be honest... this is out of hand. It's absolutely ridiculous what I-P is turning into on Wikipedia and it is largely a result of this interaction ban which is broken on a nearly daily basis. It is pitting the two "sides" against each other and it has gotten worse than I have ever seen it. The interaction ban is not working; therefore, I hope that you will do something else that can help this situation before it completely falls apart. Here are the newest violations of the interaction ban:
Please take this discussion among yourselves elsewhere and do not put images on my talk page, thanks. Sandstein 08:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(indent) I didn't see you all complaining when Sandstein also refused to block Mbz1 for her incivility for the very same reason. Just drop the stick, and stop beating the dead horse. Yazan ( talk) 04:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It might help if people actually decide to discuss content in a centralized fashion, WP:IPCOLL has a number of recent discussions that seem all but ignored by a number of editors who are otherwise very vocal. Unomi ( talk) 07:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
6 months is a bit over the top, the usual block for first time socking is 1 week. nableezy - 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sand. I was wondering if you wanted to take a break from arbtitrations and I/P issues and take some time to review this? If you decline for want of time, I will understand. NickCT ( talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to ask for permission to edit the article List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Of course there some laureates that were awarded for peace and they are under topic of my ban. I would not have asked for permission, but the list was nominated to get the status of featured list before my ban has started, and it was opposed by Malik Shabazz because he sees some problems with the references. I would like to add some references to the list please. May I please ask you, if I am allowed to ask some other administrators like my mentors, for example, or because the ban was posted by you I always should ask you, if I have similar questions in the feature. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 10:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For admirably sedulous administrative oversight, through the contentious Nacht und Nebel of chronic editorial conflict in the I/P area in defence of the rigorous maintenance of the highest standards in Wikipedia, in what will always be an unrewarding task of difficult judgement calls. Nishidani ( talk) 10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC) |
Thank you! Sandstein 11:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a request for clarification regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit. You may be interested in taking a look. NW ( Talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago, I asked User:Nableezy to help me with pictures on User_talk:Nableezy#Qalunya and on User_talk:Nableezy#Bir_Salim over at commons; as I am not very knowledgeable about pictures...or Arabic. Just to make 100% sure: he can still help me on commons with this, I hope? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 19:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Siberian Wikipedia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wanted to reply here to your comment. You implied that I've a "penchant for excessive drama". Maybe it was so when I was new on wikipedia. But I don't think that it's valid for my edits on the I-P issue and certainly not after the interaction ban was enacted. In any case, this statement is somewhat antagonising. Simply because there is a feeling, not unbased one I guess, that too many times admins are focusing on the drama certain issue causes and not on the essence. As like WP:DRAMA is the only policy of wikipedia of how to behave. Also, I've the impression that this attitude allow admins to dismiss any mistake they made. It's too frequent that this argument is used,-and I don't blame or imply that you are guilty of it-not at all. But I do think that this argument is a bit worn out. Regards-- Gilisa ( talk) 07:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect iSlate. Since you had some involvement with the iSlate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). mono 23:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein, I am sorry to bother you all the time, but you said you were the only one, who I may ask for permission to edit an article. So, here's my general question, hopefully the last one, about my topic ban. Let's say an article has few sections, some of which are directly and strongly related to the topic of my ban while others are absolutely not. May I edit those other sections? Thank you for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 14:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
More references have emerged about Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i, so I request userification to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 01:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I may have inadvertently stepped into something perhaps I should have avoided. I saw Carnival in Bern at DYK when I was checking the status of an entry, and having lived in the region and being interested in the subject of carnival I tweaked the article a bit. But it appears that there's more here than I know. Please advise whether I should step out. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You were involved in an appeal filed at AE a week or so ago by the above user in relation to his topic ban from the Armenia topic area. Could you please take a look at User talk:AGK#TDLS AE appeal, and if you can, offer comment? He makes some compelling arguments, and I am inclined to think that a topic ban was too harsh and/or that a second chance is in order. Thanks, AGK 13:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
HalfShadow was being funny, with that picture and stuff at AN/I. Then he was mad because he was blocked for what he did, so you should not punish him because he is upset, you should lighten up on HS because we need him. AN/I would be all serious problems and boring if people get blocked for humor. I think that he has been blocked too long, please think about that for a while. 68.28.104.232 ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:SPA account on topic of Scientology, see only edits to articles on Wikipedia, [43] and [44]. This has been a prior pattern of SPA accounts on this topic, to show up and remove the word "controversial" from appearing anywhere in the lede of articles relating to front groups of the organization. Can you please give the account a warning, notifying it of the relevant applications of WP:ARBSCI? I will refrain from doing it myself, as I have been involved in improvement of quality-rated content on the topic. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Pity only that Varsovian was already warned very recently on the article talk page. [45]. How many more warnings will he get? If you read the discussion on ANI, the part about Mr.Moszynski, Varsovian is continuing to claim that he is a liar even if he has completely zero sources for that. Dr. Loosmark 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Instead of being happy that he narrowly avoided sanctions Varsovian is at it again. There is a discussion on the Frederic Chopin talk page whether he should be considered "Polish" or "French-Polish". user:Varsovian appeared and made this edit [47]. (note that nobody ever claimed that the British excluded the Poles from the parade because they were nasty people). This is a clear attempt at trying to spread the battlefield from the London Parade article to Chopin article, as the London Parade has absolutely nothing to do with Chopin. I ask you enforce Digwuren arbitration to Varsovian. Dr. Loosmark 15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please take this discussion elsewhere. Sandstein 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sandstein, I am wondering whether users are permitted to escape sanctioning by hit-and-run tactics, that is striking some articles, and then retreating in time, before admins can (or are willing to) act effetively? After a hiatus of weeks or months, rinse and repeat, deja vu all over again, etc.
You seem to be very patient with User:Loosmark, who has a habit, apart from his back and forth semi retiring, to ask you here to intervene against his foes. On the other hand, only six weeks ago, you readily blocked me, for what you called "nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct and harrassment". I'm wondering how you would describe the recent behavior of Loosmark? You once again complied with his demands and Digwuren-restricted his opponent User:Varsovian, so one might say that harrassment was successful here. Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination), where Loosmark, against overwhelming consensus of many neutral editors, does not hesitate to once again defend the vanity article on EEML member Poeticbent. Can this be explained other than with nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct on behalf of a fellow Pole?
Following Loosmark's examples, may I ask you about User:Mamalala, who showed up again recently, and got warned by FPaS, but not placed on Digwuren notice?
Another example is User:Space Cadet, a very seasoned user and sock puppeteer (self admitted to User:Tirid Tirid) who was placed under Digwuren editing restriction in 2008, occasionally returns to conduct edit wars, mainly on German/Polish place naming. In the summary to his recent four reverts in prolonged editwars, that include adding Polish claims to German folklore figure Rübezahl, switching of historic German place names to current Polish ones in Wilhelm Gnapheus and Mauritius Ferber, and repeatedly re-adding a superfluous mentioning of Danzig/Gdańsk to the article on the Swiss printing hose Henricus Petrus, he called me a hardheaded edit warrior.
Just wondering. -- Matthead Discuß 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just found out that Sulmues ( talk · contribs) attempted to recruit people on the Albanian wikipedia to join him in his battles here, [50] [51] (translation: [52]), barely a week after you warned him to cease and desist from WP:BATTLE behavior. Please advise. Athenean ( talk) 18:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I unintentionally overwrote your unblock decline for User:Bubbleshum. — Jeremy ( v^_^v Dittobori) 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you have been familiar with the Hewitt arbitration case before: do you have the time to look at Wikipedia:AE#Incompleteness_theorems when you get back online, if nobody else gets to it before then? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog) as "no consensus" without any obvious reference to the arguments rather than the raw numbers (as you know, AfD is not supposed to be a vote). As Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus says,
The core argument for deleting or merging this article was lack of notability. I don't see any reference in your closure to this argument, or indeed to any factor other than raw numbers. Could you explain? -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide me with a copy of the talk page for that article? I pasted a bunch of refs to articles there that may be relevant to Abd Rabbo family incident. Thanks. Tiamut talk 07:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal which has been running for 8 days now. There is a clear consensus on the talk page for no merge [54]. As an uninvolved can you close it like you did the bishop hill blog AFD? mark nutley ( talk) 08:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sandstein, in your estimation, when an editor calls into doubt the quality of a source, is it the duty of the person using the source to bring it to RS/N or the duty of the person casting doubt on the quality? Unomi ( talk) 19:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi's statement that RSN issued a "finding" is incorrect, and his statement that IMJ is uninvolved in I-P issues is also incorrect. On the other hand, an actual RSN regular who is actually uninvolved (to the point of having zero edits, to my knowledge) considers the source to be possibly reliable, and certainly reliable enough to bear mention with specific attribution. You wouldn't know that from Unomi's statements, of course, because he's got a dog in this fight. Just saying! Hipocrite ( talk) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus in that RSN discussion either in favor of or against the site's reliability. The entire issue is a content dispute and does not require arbitration enforcement. Unomi, please do not file frivolous AE reports again, and if you want to continue discussing this issue, take it off my talk page. Sandstein 05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, just wondering why you deleted the page Francois Raffoul. If you look at it objectively (17 books total as authored, edited and translated, 40 articles, 100 lectures and keynotes, named a "Rainmaker" at LSU, Book series editor), I think it is fair to say it is notable, or at least as notable as comparable pages on wikipedia... Would you consider reinstating it?-- Lesbossons ( talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein,
I'd like to bring to your attention that the other party may be in violation of her interaction ban. She commented about me and my English skills at AN/I. Please check it. Regards,-- Gilisa ( talk) 05:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, please re-factor or substantiate:
Cordially, Unomi ( talk) 09:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that it had to come to this. I hope that we can move forward in a fashion more in line with the 5 pillars. Unomi ( talk) 10:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein, i`m reported that blocking user:Direktor has evaded the 48 hrs., reversing some pages for the Republic of Dubrovnik and Dubrovnik, this is the link of Direktor IP 83.131.220.241. [3] -- 186.105.66.150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.66.150 ( talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a recent and rather interesting example of the interaction ban enforcement [4]. The blocked user is very valued, contest contributor, who submitted around 100 feature pictures.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I was hoping you could give me some insight on the intricacies of WP:OUTING. Would posting what you believe to be a user's IP address(es) on a user talk page and using this to infer their country of residence apply as a violation of this policy? Furthermore, would posting specific accusations of sockpuppetry (ie: I think user XX is a sockpuppet of user YY) break this rule too when not submitted as a SPI, but rather on a user talk page? Thanks for your help, Breein1007 ( talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I sent you email again. You did not get one last time. If you would not get this one either, may I please ask you to check on your spam folder? Thank you for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sandstein. Can you point to policy backing this edit? Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You might want to lock that talk page as the IP user is apparently not too happy with our unblocking policies. De728631 ( talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Some aspects have calmed down since I started WP:ANI#Enough but not all, including the new AE report/request. I was actually considering a 31 hour full protect on some articles to try and separate things, but on review it seems like it's moved into project and user talk space conflict largely, so even article protection won't help much.
I don't know that an ARBPIA enforcement spree will particularly help, or is useful, but your AE experience may be relevant to judging that.
Let me know what you're thinking, I'm looking for input and consciously not doing anything until I get a good night's rest and review again. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1 (
talk) is wishing you a Happy
Purim! This greeting promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Backdated timestamp to allow archiving. Sandstein 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Two people have commented in support of his complaint that the interaction ban doesn't cover making reference to the other party, with one of them saying it seems like a severe overreaction on your part. I have put it on hold if you would like to comment. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
[6] Does the user need to clear their cache or something technical like that? Cptnono ( talk) 08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sand, 1) I'm concerned that 2 seperate AEs are being merged. Can we try to seperate them out? I fear that someone might miss comments about themselves as they are not in the right section. 2) As we've had calm and collected conversations before regarding contentious I/P editors (see above "Content on User Pages"), I'm a little suprised you would support topic banning me. NickCT ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Would I be able to edit the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) without being blocked again? That includes removing material written by You-Know-Who.
Note that I was editing that article before the interaction ban was suggested.
124.170.123.137 ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Me. Sorry, that was an honest mistake. Factomancer ( talk) 10:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
So I can alter or remove material as long as it wasn't added by She(or He)-Who-Will-Remain-Nameless? What if the material was added by someone else then You-Know-Who corrected the spelling or performed some minor alteration on it? Would removing that material count as a revert?
Georgewilliamherbert, who wrote the ban, has said:
I didn't intend to establish a standard that you have to identify the source of any particular text you want to edit and ensure it's not the editor you're prohibited from interacting with. It's extremely hard to meet the latter level of certainty that you're not touching that other person's edits at all.
But that seems to be the standard you are applying here. It seems that now I can't safely edit any significantly large article without going through its entire history and finding out the provenance of each character. Factomancer ( talk) 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear to me what your summary is intended to mean. Are you proposing that I recuse myself altogether from returning problematic hooks from the queue to the suggestions page? If so, I very much doubt I can comply with this request. Removing hooks from the queue for further discussion is part of my responsibility as a DYK administrator, not to return problematic hooks would be tantamount to negligence. I should add that merely returning a hook to the suggestions page in no way gives me an unfair advantage and cannot be considered as an abuse of the tools. It simply means the hook will be subject to closer scrutiny, which surely cannot be construed as in any way harmful to the project.
If on the other hand you simply meant I should not outright delete hooks from the queue but be sure instead to return them to the discussion page, I am certainly happy to assent to that. Although I felt at the time I was justified in deleting Mbz's hook, I quickly acknowledged it was an error of judgement - which we all inevitably make from time to time - and from the fracas that eventuated I had already resolved never to attempt this shortcut again. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The question seems to be whether DYK has the same expectation as WP:AFD. Admins closing deletion discussions are charged with determining consensus, but at the same time are expected to separate this administrative role from their editorial role. I don't believe admins could argue one position in a deletion discussion, for instance, and then also close it saying that their decision to close was insignificant because they were simply enacting consensus. If DYK is different then perhaps that is a matter of its history, but in theory, at least, they seem similar. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Still sure about your decision to sanction Mbz1 and "advise" Gatoclass, Sandstein? Breein1007 ( talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement for deletion, using Twinkle. Unfortunately, the protection of the pages has prevented them being properly tagged. I am requesting you, as an admin, to edit through the protection to properly tag the project page. Thanks. DuncanHill ( talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
To my shame I cannot keep up with the never-ending sprawl of places where given issues are discussed, so could you please notify this: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Desmond Travers at the appropriate venues for monitoring. M.S.A.Irvine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked per username violations, no idea why, I am utterly out of touch with Israel-Palestine stuff. Guy ( Help!) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to your attention this edit please. The user calls the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), "worthless article" that was not deleted only "due to the prevalence of bloc voting". The user is well aware of the fact that I have started the article, and contributed the most to it . This is the article that was nominated for the deletion by the very same user. The most heated interactions between the two of us have occurred on the article's talk and the article's deletion request. I understand the edit restrictions imposed on me by my interaction ban as being restricted to make any comment on anything concerning the other party that could cause negative feelings and the wish to respond by the other party. The statement in question did cause negative feelings and the wish to respond. Thank you for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
So a comment like this edit posted by Mbz1 above, which insults and is intended to insult the author of the article (Mbz1), as well as anyone who does not accept Factomancer's personal judgment (it's a worthless article) and referring to others as a "voting bloc," (insulting) does not appear as a battlefield and a "baiting" post to you? Mbz1 is asked to swallow what is clearly (meant to be) a personal insult at the risk of violating the ban herself? Stellarkid ( talk) 06:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this edit a breach of Mbz's topic ban? It is worth noting that this edit is part of an edit war, in which the same text has been inserted and deleted by several editors over the past couple of days. RolandR ( talk) 10:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Sandstein, I fear your topic ban on Mbz1 is not being respected ... I am currently in an edit dispute with another editor at article Rothschild family and correctly using the talk page to resolve this. I have just user:Mbz1 noticed has reverted a Zionist/Israel issue] without even bothering to discuss at the talk page and making allegations of POV. After all that's gone on over the last few weeks I fear Mbz1 is not getting the message. Regarding my input to that article, I am avoiding a tit-for tat edit war by using the talk page and will not revert for a day t allow discussion. Thanks Vexorg ( talk) 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question Sandstein: what is the purpose of the 12 hour clause in the interaction ban, and why is it not being enforced? Thanks, Breein1007 ( talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting how this process works. A highly partisan editor in the I/P disputes, in this case RolandR, informs on Mbz1 to Sandstein. RolandR has nothing to lose, because if Mbz1 gets blocked, RolandR gets rid of an editing opponent, and if she does not get get blocked RolandR loses nothing and is no worse off than before. Sandstein, and other administrators, in playing along with this revolting process of editing opponents snitching on each other, encourage editors to continue to act like nasty children, and exactly in situations when adult behavior would be so valuable. The entire process is very dysfunctional. - 173.52.124.223 ( talk) 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
How long does the discussion page on a deleted page remains for all to see?-- Lesbossons ( talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, if it is not too much of an imposition I would like to request that you monitor my edits and comment directly on any problematic behavior on my part, no matter how slight. Best Regards, Unomi ( talk) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 05:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Noticed you were the one who deleted the Dog Police article. I have more information on it. According to Youtube account melslifetv the song was later adapted into a television pilot staring Adam Sandler & Jeremy Piven early in their careers back in 3/30/90 also called Dog Police. That plus the original song and band which was well known and infamous, if not successful, on MTV makes me want to say reopen the article with the limited information presented and follow it up with a Stub notice, and hopefully someone with some concrete information out there can fill in the missing information. The Skunk ( talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
At first I did not care so much about topic ban (I hardly edit in on this topic anyway), but because it was enforced so vigorously here's my official appeal:
As it explained here "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say that users subject to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy ..."
May I please ask you to provide the differences to confirm me repeatedly violate policy in the topic area of my ban?
Sandstein, I am contacting you here because you seem to be the most involved in the recent flare-ups in the IP area. I saw this edit summary on my watchlist, and I thought it was very inappropriate, until I saw what was before it. I can see that the user is frustrated, but it is no excuse for this behavior. I take offense as a Wikipedian, and a marxist. I am not asking for any action but to warn Mbz1, and maybe try to cool her down a bit. I was going to post this on her talkpage, but this was her response to another user who did. Best. Yazan ( talk) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Bickering collapsed. Get this discussion off my talk page; it does not relate to me. Sandstein 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Mbz1s comments are obvious personal attacks and admin action against this user is needed: "because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick" "I wonder why when i looked at your user page I had a very strong urge to wash my hands" These comments are unacceptable. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Yazan, please stand by while I evaluate this matter. Sandstein 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I was being a bit brusque. Once again, I understand why you would extend a topic ban to Mbz1 but I do not understand why a topic ban, or even a permanent ban, would not be extended to Vexorg, who is openly disseminating hate speech and promoting wild conspiracy theories, right on that actual AE discussion page. If you have any insight into that, I would appreciate it. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Sandstein. Mbz1 has been reported for two very offensive messages posted at editors talk pages. It looks like a quick admin involvement would prevent those reports from escalating. Thanks Vexorg ( talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed as redundant to one of the above sections. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Does this violate this? I'm not sure it does, as it is not about the I/P conflict as much as it about I/P issues. I leave it to your good judgement. Best NickCT ( talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Nick. Already dealt with above Vexorg ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
This appears to be a clear violation of G-Dett's topic ban (which includes Talk pages of articles related to I-P articles) as a result of he Samaria ArbComm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.79.68 ( talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Sandstein,
I can only imagine the level of your 'sigh' while reading this, but it's clear these people just are not going to let up with their disruptive meldramtic and largely substanceless reports at ANI. Here's the latest one and it's targeted against myself this time. I've left a brief comment but I really am going to avoid getting embroiled in such a ridiculous waste of time yet again. Wikipedia is quickly becoming a huge kindergarten and I want no part of this aspect of it. I just want to edit and while I realise my edits are controversial by editors of a certain political bent I cannot do anything but stick by my convictions. You are no doubt aware of the close relationship between Mbz1 and Stellarkid. I shall leave you to attend to this new report or get another admin to attend to it. I am not interested in joining yet another pissing war between two factions on Wikipedia. Thanks and you have my sympathies. Vexorg ( talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the Carlos Latuff cartoon image on RolandR's user page, it could easily be interpreted as referring to Israelis as Nazis because many Latuff cartoons do just that [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
The caption included with the image on RolandR's talk page, is not part of the image as Latuff created it. The caption was added by someone else. The link with the caption in no way supports the quote [18]
It seems possible that the Latuff cartoon, combined with the quote, was included in a way so that users on the P side of the I/P disputes would understand that the "Nazis" referred to are Israeli Jews, while all others would understand it as a repudiation on Nazi-like hate speech against Jews. I think it is almost certain that Latoff, when he created this cartoon, intended it to depict Israelis as modern day Nazis. 173.52.124.223 ( talk) 15:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have appealed against your prohibition of my use of certain images. RolandR ( talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
New York City Public Schools, 165.155.192.81 ( talk · contribs), three weeks from the end of a year's schoolblock, claim that you have agreed they should be unblocked. Is that true? They were actually blocked by PhilKnight. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Unomi ( talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{ subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Also, you are very welcome to join and watchlist WP:IPCOLL. Unomi ( talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sand,
Just want to register with you that I think policing user pages is a waste of your time and energy. I've notice this is second time in recent history you've objected to and tried to eliminate content on user pages.
I think Mbz correctly identified the relevant policies as being WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:UPNO in Roland's case. I wonder though if WP:NOTSOAPBOX was originally intended for user pages, and I'd point out that WP:UPNO could be used to object to any number of items on users pages. I don't think any really clear policy existed for this sanction. I would make two points to you -
1)Policing user pages (which have a de facto private nature to them) is dictatorial.
2)Policing user pages rarely acts to significantly improve wikipedia. Normal WP users never see em, and editors only see them if they choose to look.
For the record, I don't think Roland's image was particularly helpful. Best, NickCT ( talk) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Mr.Sand I have found over the years that Wikipedia is literally loaded with misinformation. Recently I have found an article on Nutrition which I was hopefully going to use as a citation for something else. In reading only the first 1/4 of this nonsense I felt compelled to make note within the article that it if full of typos, gibberish, misinformation, and at some points unmitigated ignorance. I was immediately chided by yourself to make my comments in the “TALK” section which almost nobody reads. This does not cure the problem. Innocent minds may use the misinformation presented and load it into their mental computers. Your deletion of my correction demonstrates your compliance in this educational misconduct. Please either notify the author to modify this article so that it no longer contains informational errors or remove it until someone takes the time to actually edit the article for content rather than merely grammar. The last straw was that WATER could be DILUTED by fiber.
Please make it your mission to assist those seeking enlightenment rather than acting like a police officer handing out a minor infraction ticket. Your effort to perpetuate such nonsense questions your presence. Thanks for listening Hogwash eliminator ( talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The current artikel is tottal incompliet Air Bases and Aircraft are missing , there are also much wrong informations (for exampel Berne is a civil Airport, the F-5E are still every weekday in use as fighteraircrafts). Sorry but the newspaper FACTS as reliable sources is just a bad jocke. Have Look at the German and the Italian version, Thes Versions have the full qualety for wikipedia. I knew my engilsh is not well, but with this wrong informations in the Articel i cant say nothing. My Informations are the Truht because i work sinc 1996 for the Swiss Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The following [19] was added to User:Factomancer's page today.
It links to [20] in which she argues that User:Mbz1 should be blocked.
In my opinion it is a violation of her interaction ban. I bring it to your attention here. Thank you. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. I don't know anything about user interaction bans, but seem to remember you imposing a few. Mbz1 left me a message asking if I could propose an interaction ban between herself and Vexorg. I have no idea how or where to make such a proposal. Can you help? ← George talk 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No action taken. If you feel the need to continue to discuss this among yourselves, which I strongly suggest you don't, please do so elsewhere. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Factomancer ( talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Everybody, stop the bickering. I won't take arbitration enforcement action on account of this quote alone. While it is true that divisive political content, especially related to the I-P conflict, is in principle unwelcome on user pages per general policy and WP:ARBPIA, this long and rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag. Nonetheless, displaying lengthy political opinions on one's user page is a pretty strong signal to me that the user in question is here primarily to push a particular point of view, and this may count strongly against them in the event that an administrator must decide whether to sanction them for actual misconduct. (But then, so does this sort of sniping at each other. Get back to work on articles, please.) Sandstein 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Would just like to remind everyone that Sandstein did not require RolandR to remove his support for "anti-Zionist" on this web page, just the picture of the crossed-out Israeli flag as against Wikipedia policy. As long as RolandR and others can be considered "anti-Zionist" there is no reason why I cannot be considered "anti-anti-Zionist" without violating any policy. Nowhere do I have a crossed-out Palestinian flag on my userpage, not would I ever have one. Anti-zionists would preclude the existence of Israel, but Zionists do not preclude the existence of any other people. "Zionists" accepted Resolution 181 that would have created an Arab (Palestinian) homeland. Palestinian Arabs on the other hand, did not. The Arabs wanted everything for themselves, and such that Jews were not allowed to worship in the holy places that were controlled by Jordan. I do not consider those quotes to be divisive but educational. There are numerous RS that say exactly the same thing including the EUMC working definition of antisemitism as noted on my page. There is no parallel with the material on RolandR's page. In my opinion this discussion is clearly a matter of testing this administrator to see if he will put out a tit-for-tat ruling. However the analogy is incorrect and the rationale used for banning the image from RolandR's page is not the same at all. Stellarkid ( talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Hallo Ich habe jetzt meine ergänzungen der beiden Englischen Versionen der MirageIII und der Swiss Air Force auf den diskusionsseiten eingetragen. Leider ist es auf der Orginalseite Swiss air Force recht viel fehelend oder gar falsch so das das nicht mit ein paar Zahlen oder kleinen Ergänzungen korrigiert ist. Ich hoffe sehr das sich dem jemand mit guten englischkentnissen annimmt.
Sehr schade finde es ich auch das vom Artikel Flugzeugkaverne keine Englische Version existiert. Meine englischkentnisse sind leider nicht genügen um da eine Englische version zu machen, ausserdem ist es sehr schwer Quellennachweise zu machen da über dies anlagen nur wenige Dokumente öffentlich sind. Vieleicht könnte man jemanden mit dem Sprachlichen können dazu motivieren ? Gruss Swiss testpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
[21]-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. I am not sure what to do about this editor who is harassing me now. Please check out his contributions --there are only a handful and totally directed at me. Also please check out the edit summaries on my talk page. Would appreciate your help with this one. Thank you. Stellarkid ( talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I must be druuunk to have forgotten to give you his name! ;) Stellarkid ( talk) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the edit notice should include instructions for both the enforcement request template and the enforcement appeal template. I did this here, but the actual edit notice is fully protected. nableezy - 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Found it...
Sandstein 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this edit problematic? Unomi ( talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear! Is the impending carnage avoidable? ← ZScarpia 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess you will delete my message, as you've done last two times, but I do not know who else I may ask, so here it is. May I please ask you, if it is a proper thing to do to try to convince the editors, who had something good to say about me at my appeal to change their comments as it was done in those edits [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]? Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Why did you ban me without first telling me to remove this? I think this ban is really strange and I'm asking you to reconsider. I think there was a dispute whether it's WP:BLP. I didn't see it that way, and you could have explained to me as a moderator. I would gladly have removed it. I was never given a chance or a warning by a moderator. 3RR and the sockpupptery (which I deny! it was a mistake!) are long time ago. I'm not a very active user, I don't know if I would have made more edits or not, but I contributed to a lot of articles and I'm afraid people will delete my contributions. They have done so on a consistent basis from time to time. Please I'll gladly accept a restriction so that I won't engage in war editing which sometimes happens, but change the ban to something more reasonable... I don't really want my work to get ruined, and I also don't know what the ban includes - how wide is this scope? 99% of my edit history had to do with history and with Israel - what does it mean Arab Israeli conflict. I don't think it should have been done this way - it looks artbitrary and harsh. Thanks. Amoruso ( talk) 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Comment by Ynhockey: The sanction is puzzling to me as well, and appears ill-advised for the following reasons:
In other words, treating BLP as a sacred cow and banning anyone who remotely touches it, while letting other editors get away with just about anything with only "strong warnings" and the like (speaking of which, you might want to look at the Vexorg case because you gave him a strong warning and on the same day he started violating policies again), is not going to help improve Wikipedia, in my honest opinion. I request that you review and lift the ban, and give Amoruso a chance to make productive contributions to Wikipedia, something that he was not given with the swift and sweeping sanction which now effectively prevents him from editing. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by ZScarpia: I would agree that the ban would be excessive if it was just for a BLP violation, but the impression that I have is that it is for behavioural problems generally. Nobody would argue that "Amoruso is a prolific contributor" (albeit he has only just started to edit again after a longish break), but whether those contributions are neutral and well written would be a different matter. To me it is clear that he has great difficulty dealing with points of view other than his own and the editors expressing them. ← ZScarpia 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Appeal to revoke decision based on having a WP:RS for admittedly-misplaced WP:BLP issueI sincerely apologize again for saying what I did. What I wrote was over the top, as I felt user:Nableezy and user:unomi were relentless with trying to taint Israeli articles with the term "occupied" - they were saying this is the universal truth by an "objective" ICJ, and this what brought the bad exaggeration. It is not my habit to exaggerate when dealing with someone termed as "X" by "source name". I feel a little that Nableezy was being protective of calling someone for that behavior, which is a bit of a serious issue on its own when Nableezy knows who that person is and that's he's under a lot of criticism for an alleged extreme anti Israeli decision and for being on the panel for alleged bias (all supported by WP:RS). But I went to check my sources about the ICJ decision and I found the actual source. The source is referenced in scholarly works. It's referenced in Florida Law Review 57 Fla. L. Rev. 717, MENDING THE "FENCE": HOW TREATMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE HAGUE HAS REDEFINED THE DOCTRINE OF SELF- DEFENSE, page 13. The source is: "The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2004, at 20. The Jerusalem Post in an WP:RS. It talks about the case and says.. "'Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." No relevance. I see the words, but even knowing that the International Court of Justice would rule against Israel, I cannot fully believe they were written. With these words, the ICJ decision joins the parade of anti-Semitic infamy, along with such milestones as the Dreyfus trial...". This would all have been fleshed out if the discussion continued for more than the few hours it did. It would have been wrong and it won't continue now, but it's an RS for BLP purposes. I still won't reintroduce it, in fact I REMOVED every reference to the word, but having an WP:RS takes it out of WP:BLP sanction. I again apologize and will not edit that specific article again, and will edit more calmly without edit-warring, but I think this shows that it wasn't capricious and that it was based on WP:RS. This is not the only Israeli sources about the court's opinion to this regard, but it's an WP:RS that I was familiar with, and it stuck with me. It does not condone saying that, because I realize it's not helpful and I should have controlled that, but it's still an WP:RS so it shouldn't be dealt this way IMHO. Kind regards, Amoruso ( talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
|
I am collapsing the discussion above because Amoruso has also made an appeal at WP:AE. So as not to duplicate the discussion I will respond there to the salient points raised here. Sandstein 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
[30] It appears that User:Vexorg and User:Beyond My Ken are weighing in as "uninvolved" editors. There is no way that Vexorg can be considered uninvolved and Beyond My Ken has weighed in at the noticeboard for Vexorg [31] making his position of support for Vexorg very clear. (Looks like Vexorg will be scrolling off the page and will get away scott-free this time as well, oh well) Stellarkid ( talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This appeal has been closed. Per this there was a suggestion of further discussion around a possible mentorship, if it would help. Mbz1 also contacted me privately and urged me to ping you. What are your thoughts? I'll watch here or we can do this on my page or wherever you like. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed your award. Do not use barnstars for pursuing disputes with others and please find something else to do. Sandstein 21:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed to interaction-blocked FOTG for breaking the ban. Mbz1 has just messaged me asking if this constitutes a break. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave to catch a plane so I was wondering if you could take a look in the interim. Sorry! SGGH ping! 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein! It has come to my attention that an uninvolved administrator has agreed with a recommendation of formal mentoring for Mbz1 in place of any block/topic ban. I hereby offer to mentor Mbz1 and ask that, provided she agrees, you withdraw the sanctions in question. Alternatively, Lar has agreed to mentor Mbz1, but he also said that he might not be available during problematic times. In any case, we can probably work something out, and even bring another person in. I will also use this opportunity to reiterate that I strongly believe that any kind of long-term sanction for an editor who has a history of positive contributions to Wikipedia is counter-productive, before other measures have been tried, including mentoring. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I just wanted to let you know that Gilabrand is editing I/P topics again in contravention of her topic ban.
Factomancer is harassing and stalking me, and lying to boot. This is getting ridiculous. I have had no dealings with her for weeks now. When is this person going to stop the savage campaign against other editors on Wikipedia. She is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I did not remove any sections about the Munich film, I did not add any material about somebody's daughter being killed and I am entitled to write anything I want on Zionism pages where no conflict is mentioned. Her accusations are false. Her attempts to scare away other editors, insistence that pages belong to her and incivility toward everyone, including a whole host of administrators, is serious cause for concern. When is this behavior going to end??? Doesn't anyone see what is happening here. Is everyone blind???-- Geewhiz ( talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
He's still doing the weird date formatting thing in contravention of your earlier block. -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can I ask what duration you had in mind for Nableezy's "limited" topic ban? As an aside, I agree regarding Shuki and AE complaints/reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein... Constance Demby here... and it's been some time since we had a discussion... We last talked in Dec 09, and then I got really busy with career concerns. I had sent new information for my page, and there were items that needed to be edited, changed, etc, and I finally now have time to devote to my Wiki page and make it the way it's supposed to be! which honestly, I did not understand nor was I aware of the Wiki rules when I first started posting to my page ... and is why all that trouble and bad reviews on the talk page occured. no one had told me how Wikipedia works... Now I know, and now I have a new producer who want to promote me, and I need to fix my page the way it should be according to Wiki standards and guidelines. But now I cant find the page where the new bio was entered, and where there were several comments from you
so to sum up... I need to get my wiki page edited and up to standard, and I would appreciate your counsel and direction as to where I find the page where I entered all my info in Dec of 2009... thanks so much for your help and guidance, much appreciated!
and I just found this: when I tried to go to < http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Constance_Demby&diff=prev&oldid=329772242>
Wikimedia Foundation
Error
العربيOur servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.
thanks for you help Sandstein, much appreciated
Constance
66.215.99.9 (
talk) 05:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
hi again and this is the page that I was looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Constance_Demby&diff=next&oldid=329772242 it just came up. now,I need to understand the guidelines on the two sides of the page and how to re-edit and re-submit the material.
thanks .... Constance Demby 66.215.99.9 ( talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Good news you have something to block me for again Factomancer ( talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unequal implementation of a supposedly bilateral interaction ban. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
== Truly pathetic ==
You can take any criticism without threatening me with a "community" ban. I've contributed numerous quality articles to Wikipedia - more than you have recently. Shows how little you care about the encyclopedia and how this is just an exercise in imposing your authority for your own gratification. I've removed my ANI report so you can't get the satisfaction of banning me.
Factomancer (
talk) 16:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Come on, explain yourself. You said that you thought I needed a community ban. Well, make your case. I'm listening.
Factomancer (
talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not waiting 8 hours, sorry. I don't know if that even applies to everyone or just to the editors under the ban, but I don't really care to be honest... this is out of hand. It's absolutely ridiculous what I-P is turning into on Wikipedia and it is largely a result of this interaction ban which is broken on a nearly daily basis. It is pitting the two "sides" against each other and it has gotten worse than I have ever seen it. The interaction ban is not working; therefore, I hope that you will do something else that can help this situation before it completely falls apart. Here are the newest violations of the interaction ban:
Please take this discussion among yourselves elsewhere and do not put images on my talk page, thanks. Sandstein 08:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(indent) I didn't see you all complaining when Sandstein also refused to block Mbz1 for her incivility for the very same reason. Just drop the stick, and stop beating the dead horse. Yazan ( talk) 04:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It might help if people actually decide to discuss content in a centralized fashion, WP:IPCOLL has a number of recent discussions that seem all but ignored by a number of editors who are otherwise very vocal. Unomi ( talk) 07:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
6 months is a bit over the top, the usual block for first time socking is 1 week. nableezy - 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Sand. I was wondering if you wanted to take a break from arbtitrations and I/P issues and take some time to review this? If you decline for want of time, I will understand. NickCT ( talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to ask for permission to edit the article List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Of course there some laureates that were awarded for peace and they are under topic of my ban. I would not have asked for permission, but the list was nominated to get the status of featured list before my ban has started, and it was opposed by Malik Shabazz because he sees some problems with the references. I would like to add some references to the list please. May I please ask you, if I am allowed to ask some other administrators like my mentors, for example, or because the ban was posted by you I always should ask you, if I have similar questions in the feature. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 10:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For admirably sedulous administrative oversight, through the contentious Nacht und Nebel of chronic editorial conflict in the I/P area in defence of the rigorous maintenance of the highest standards in Wikipedia, in what will always be an unrewarding task of difficult judgement calls. Nishidani ( talk) 10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC) |
Thank you! Sandstein 11:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a request for clarification regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit. You may be interested in taking a look. NW ( Talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago, I asked User:Nableezy to help me with pictures on User_talk:Nableezy#Qalunya and on User_talk:Nableezy#Bir_Salim over at commons; as I am not very knowledgeable about pictures...or Arabic. Just to make 100% sure: he can still help me on commons with this, I hope? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 19:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Siberian Wikipedia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wanted to reply here to your comment. You implied that I've a "penchant for excessive drama". Maybe it was so when I was new on wikipedia. But I don't think that it's valid for my edits on the I-P issue and certainly not after the interaction ban was enacted. In any case, this statement is somewhat antagonising. Simply because there is a feeling, not unbased one I guess, that too many times admins are focusing on the drama certain issue causes and not on the essence. As like WP:DRAMA is the only policy of wikipedia of how to behave. Also, I've the impression that this attitude allow admins to dismiss any mistake they made. It's too frequent that this argument is used,-and I don't blame or imply that you are guilty of it-not at all. But I do think that this argument is a bit worn out. Regards-- Gilisa ( talk) 07:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect iSlate. Since you had some involvement with the iSlate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). mono 23:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein, I am sorry to bother you all the time, but you said you were the only one, who I may ask for permission to edit an article. So, here's my general question, hopefully the last one, about my topic ban. Let's say an article has few sections, some of which are directly and strongly related to the topic of my ban while others are absolutely not. May I edit those other sections? Thank you for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 14:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
More references have emerged about Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i, so I request userification to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 01:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I may have inadvertently stepped into something perhaps I should have avoided. I saw Carnival in Bern at DYK when I was checking the status of an entry, and having lived in the region and being interested in the subject of carnival I tweaked the article a bit. But it appears that there's more here than I know. Please advise whether I should step out. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You were involved in an appeal filed at AE a week or so ago by the above user in relation to his topic ban from the Armenia topic area. Could you please take a look at User talk:AGK#TDLS AE appeal, and if you can, offer comment? He makes some compelling arguments, and I am inclined to think that a topic ban was too harsh and/or that a second chance is in order. Thanks, AGK 13:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
HalfShadow was being funny, with that picture and stuff at AN/I. Then he was mad because he was blocked for what he did, so you should not punish him because he is upset, you should lighten up on HS because we need him. AN/I would be all serious problems and boring if people get blocked for humor. I think that he has been blocked too long, please think about that for a while. 68.28.104.232 ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:SPA account on topic of Scientology, see only edits to articles on Wikipedia, [43] and [44]. This has been a prior pattern of SPA accounts on this topic, to show up and remove the word "controversial" from appearing anywhere in the lede of articles relating to front groups of the organization. Can you please give the account a warning, notifying it of the relevant applications of WP:ARBSCI? I will refrain from doing it myself, as I have been involved in improvement of quality-rated content on the topic. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Pity only that Varsovian was already warned very recently on the article talk page. [45]. How many more warnings will he get? If you read the discussion on ANI, the part about Mr.Moszynski, Varsovian is continuing to claim that he is a liar even if he has completely zero sources for that. Dr. Loosmark 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Instead of being happy that he narrowly avoided sanctions Varsovian is at it again. There is a discussion on the Frederic Chopin talk page whether he should be considered "Polish" or "French-Polish". user:Varsovian appeared and made this edit [47]. (note that nobody ever claimed that the British excluded the Poles from the parade because they were nasty people). This is a clear attempt at trying to spread the battlefield from the London Parade article to Chopin article, as the London Parade has absolutely nothing to do with Chopin. I ask you enforce Digwuren arbitration to Varsovian. Dr. Loosmark 15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please take this discussion elsewhere. Sandstein 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sandstein, I am wondering whether users are permitted to escape sanctioning by hit-and-run tactics, that is striking some articles, and then retreating in time, before admins can (or are willing to) act effetively? After a hiatus of weeks or months, rinse and repeat, deja vu all over again, etc.
You seem to be very patient with User:Loosmark, who has a habit, apart from his back and forth semi retiring, to ask you here to intervene against his foes. On the other hand, only six weeks ago, you readily blocked me, for what you called "nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct and harrassment". I'm wondering how you would describe the recent behavior of Loosmark? You once again complied with his demands and Digwuren-restricted his opponent User:Varsovian, so one might say that harrassment was successful here. Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination), where Loosmark, against overwhelming consensus of many neutral editors, does not hesitate to once again defend the vanity article on EEML member Poeticbent. Can this be explained other than with nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct on behalf of a fellow Pole?
Following Loosmark's examples, may I ask you about User:Mamalala, who showed up again recently, and got warned by FPaS, but not placed on Digwuren notice?
Another example is User:Space Cadet, a very seasoned user and sock puppeteer (self admitted to User:Tirid Tirid) who was placed under Digwuren editing restriction in 2008, occasionally returns to conduct edit wars, mainly on German/Polish place naming. In the summary to his recent four reverts in prolonged editwars, that include adding Polish claims to German folklore figure Rübezahl, switching of historic German place names to current Polish ones in Wilhelm Gnapheus and Mauritius Ferber, and repeatedly re-adding a superfluous mentioning of Danzig/Gdańsk to the article on the Swiss printing hose Henricus Petrus, he called me a hardheaded edit warrior.
Just wondering. -- Matthead Discuß 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just found out that Sulmues ( talk · contribs) attempted to recruit people on the Albanian wikipedia to join him in his battles here, [50] [51] (translation: [52]), barely a week after you warned him to cease and desist from WP:BATTLE behavior. Please advise. Athenean ( talk) 18:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I unintentionally overwrote your unblock decline for User:Bubbleshum. — Jeremy ( v^_^v Dittobori) 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you have been familiar with the Hewitt arbitration case before: do you have the time to look at Wikipedia:AE#Incompleteness_theorems when you get back online, if nobody else gets to it before then? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog) as "no consensus" without any obvious reference to the arguments rather than the raw numbers (as you know, AfD is not supposed to be a vote). As Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus says,
The core argument for deleting or merging this article was lack of notability. I don't see any reference in your closure to this argument, or indeed to any factor other than raw numbers. Could you explain? -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide me with a copy of the talk page for that article? I pasted a bunch of refs to articles there that may be relevant to Abd Rabbo family incident. Thanks. Tiamut talk 07:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal which has been running for 8 days now. There is a clear consensus on the talk page for no merge [54]. As an uninvolved can you close it like you did the bishop hill blog AFD? mark nutley ( talk) 08:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)