User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

AE report

I see you adopted Varsovian's idea for the interaction ban, which he first proposed on the user:Stifle talk page: [1], [2], [3]. Very well. I have tried to restrain myself but after I dared to report him he started with relentless personal attacks against myself, nobody was clerking the AE page and neither did anybody tell him to stop. Then he came to spread the attacks on your talk. And I am only human. Even today he was de facto implying that I was deliberately mistranslating a source: [4]. And this is after the other day he accused me of lying about a source [5]. Am I allowed to throw in such accusations myself too? Or am I for example allowed to say things like: "I am not alleging misconduct. Sandstein you should be happy that I have not reported you to the ArbCom for your admin work"? Anyway I request that you reply to my initial AE enforcement request, I provided 3 diffs in which I think he broke the AE. You could at the very least say: "yes he did break them" or "no, he did not break them". At least we would know where we stand. Dr. Loosmark 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above message, which makes reference to Varsovian, constitutes a violation of your interaction ban. In reaction, you are blocked for 24 hours. Sandstein 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the substance of your question, I consider the issue moot after the mutual interaction ban, since the AE request seems also to stem from disputes between you two. So as not to further any interaction between you two, I do not intend to address any prior grievances you may have had against each other. If you continue to pursue this dispute, you will violate your interaction ban again. Sandstein 12:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a revelation for you, Sandstein, 99.99% of the reports generate from some sort of a dispute, without that nobody would bother to report anybody. I remember that some 9 months ago, when you imposed on me a 6 months topic ban, you refused to consider the behavior of another user involved because according to you that was irrelevant and everybody is responsible for its own actions. As for your explanation that you don't want to address any prior "grievances" not to "further any interaction", the explanation does not hold any water. I intend to respect the restrictions and I don't intend to comment any further on the issue in any shape or form. So your addressing the prior grievances would not "further any interaction". Dr. Loosmark 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeneacurry's block

Well, there was pretty much a consensus after several days discussion for a community ban, so I was just doing what the community said. But I can understand why everyone at AN/I was so inclined to a ban.

Eugeneacurry was in the middle of an edit war with another user and wrote an "encyclopedia article" on that person. This is an encyclopedia. Our articles must be encyclopedic, or the project loses all credibility. Curry enlisted the encyclopedia itself to further his edit war against another user. I am sorry but I just see no justification under any circumstances for turning articles into weapons in edit wars. To me it simply shows contempt for the very idea of the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo the feedback. I'm declining the unblock in view of this and the ANI discussion. Sandstein 04:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

First and foremost I would like to reply to this:

"a separate request concerning Athenean should have been made if Athenean is believed to have acted disruptively" The seperate request was made 14 days ago here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean but it was completely ignored by the admins. I can make the request again. Are you willing to take a look at it?

Second I would like to appeal your decision on indefinite ban on the topics of Albania and Albanians and Greece and Greeks. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your report was ignored then the reason may be because it was unfounded or (more likely) too long and not well argued enough to usefully review. Useful reports must contain a manageable number of dated and well-explained diffs. You may not make the report again because doing so would violate your topic ban. For appealing your ban, see the instructions at WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of discretionary sanctions 2.1) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

The instructions say that I may appeal the ban to the imposing administrator, and that's what I am doing. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then your appeal is declined because you have not provided a reason for why the ban should be lifted. Sandstein 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well here it goes. I honestly believed that my 1RR restriction imposed by Nishkid almost a year ago had expired, and did not know it was still in effect.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing your restrictions is your own responsibility. This is not a convincing reason for lifting the ban. Sandstein 18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being that I was out on a ban for 6 months, and hadn't used wikipedia during that time (early June) and just forgot about this restriction. I think a little leniency on your part is warranted.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your previous substantial disruption, and the evidence produced in the AE of outing and block evasion, it is not. You have had enough chances. Your appeal is declined. You may still appeal elsewhere as per the directions above. Sandstein 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as disruption goes, you should take a look at the report I made on Athenean. If I am disruptive than Athenean is the epiphany of disruption. As soon as I came back from my ban he and his friend Alexikoua have shadowed me continually in every revert I make, and have reported me on assumption of bad faith 3 times, including this time. In fact all the bans or restrictions I have received have come from reports from this editor and his sergeant at arms Alexikoua. --I Pakapshem (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Subsection about the complaint)

How can you say it's not well argued enough when you haven't even looked at it? It is very useful, very well argued, dated and numbered. The amount of information included is vast in order to bolster the argument that this user should be permanently banned from balkan articles. --I Pakapshem (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to argue about your grievances concerning disputes, editors or articles related to Albania, you will violate your topic ban and be blocked. Sandstein 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a conversation with you, and I am not violating my topic ban since your talk page is not related to Albanian and Albanians and Greece and Greeks. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of your sanctions?

Is this [6] a breach of your recent sanctions on the two editors involved? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I think it's superseded by the report below. Sandstein 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE enforcement request

This diff [7] is a clear violation of the DIGWUREN restriction [8]. If changing my "Polish" into "Belorussian" is not a vilation of the "stay out of each other's way" then I don't know what is. Dr. Loosmark 15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Sandstein 15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Loosmark in turn, because his addition of "Polish" to the lead appeared to be a direct reaction to Varsovian removing Category:Polish Bishops. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Sandstein 17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and question

Thank you for unblocking me. I am starting to think about changing nicks, so that my biography in Wikipedia does not appear as black as it may appear judging exclusively from my block history. Would my blocks still appear if I change nickname? --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your block log carries over after a change of username. Sandstein 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]