User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/March

Warning: do not remove comments on arbitration pages

 * Note: the warning below was originally posted by me to User talk:Kintetsubuffalo. Sandstein (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. (Diff) Sandstein (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it, it was two competing edits coming in at the same moment. I forget what that's called, but it happens from time to time. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK; I think I have seen this before. Sandstein (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jellings
Hey there Sandstein, hope all's well. I was just going over the block of the Jellings fella, and saw that you were contacting the blocking admin, YankSox. He doesn't seem to be around much/at all these days, and was curious if we should do the usual and try an unblock. I don't want to step on your toes, but was just curious what you thought. :) Jmlk  1  7  23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No objections here. We can re-block him pronto if there's any trouble. Sandstein (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. :) Jmlk  1  7  23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Rarelibra
It seems to be somewhat reoccurring. Would you check? -- User:Docu


 * Done. Sandstein (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Do not threaten me for something where I am within the right. User Docu does not know how to correctly sign his comments. Users on all kinds of talk pages are able to address line items as I did correctly. User Docu, if anything, violated by editing MY comments into some grand summation, which was not the point and takes away from the point-in-line that my comments address. I fixed this by placing in "User Docu" signature by each line, which he needs to learn how to do when making line comments. I was not in the wrong, so please stop threatening me. We can discuss further with ANI involvement, if you like. Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Following up... interestingly enough is the fact that you quoted TPG on my talk page. In the guidelines, it states


 * Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

User:Docu did so by editing my comments into one mass statement, taking away from my addressing line item comments.

TPG also states ''Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:''


 * Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is —Preceding unsigned comment added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME, which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME.


 * Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add " Heading added to (reason) by Rarelibra (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC) "). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP   which was interrupted by the following: before the interruption. 

My replies were to minor points (line items) and were in full following of wikipedia guidelines. I even went back and added User Docu signatures to the lines so as to not have any confusion. So now tell me... how does this violate the above guidelines and warrant such threats from you?

It is quite clear, by the way, that User:Docu doesn't understand the WP:SIG guidelines on how to sign comments on a talk page. Rarelibra (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More
Hi, Sandstein! I am going to perhaps repeat some parts of what Rarelibra stated above, but could you please tell me what exactly in Rarelibra's comment here you found to be "incivil"? The comment does sound a bit terse, true, but incivil? Also, have you even looked at what prompted the Docu's note, or did you just act on it? If you look here, you'll see that Rarelibra merely addressed Docu's concerns point-by-point, which is a standard practice (and which Rarelibra justified above) as it makes it much easier for the readers to make heads or tails of the discussion later. There was certainly no "modifications" of Docu's comments, so I don't really see your "final warning" appropriate. I'd appreciate your further comment on the situation. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments such as "If you don't know how to do this, I will direct you to a page where you can learn. It is quite simple" are incivil, especially to an experienced editor, because they imply that the other editor is, frankly, stupid.
 * I've no problems with the edit you link to - addressing concerns point-by-point is indeed acceptable - but with this edit Rarelibra does indeed appear to alter Docu's comments. At any rate, all that contentious verbiage is hardly appropriate for a content dispute so very minor as this one. Sandstein (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop it. Please. The rewording of Docu stating that I "violated others" is unfounded. I was participating in line-by-line comment addressing, as permitted by the above guidelines. User Docu didn't understand this and violated my comments by placing them in a bulk summation... which violates the very guidelines by changing the meaning. If my comments seem brash, I apologize. But for an 'experienced editor' as User Docu may be... why is it that he constantly violates the guidelines on signatures? Rarelibra (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Docu's signature does not meet the criteria of WP:SIG. But that does not mean I was wrong to warn you about not editing Docu's comments. Point-by-point replies are OK, changing the substance of others' comments is not. Could you provide a diff, please, that shows how Docu violates the talk page guidelines? Sandstein (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about assuming good faith first? The way you interpreted Rarelibra's comment, pretty much anything (including all of my comments on this page) can be interpreted as "incivil".  Docu may not have been aware of the fact that inserting comments point-by-point is OK, and Rarelibra pointed out that it is.  In absence of direct accusations of "stupidity", any "implied meanings" are nothing but a personal interpretation of the original statement, and seeing bad intent where it is quite possible there was none is not very AGF of anyone.
 * As for this, pardon me, but the changes were labeled? It's not like Rarelibra changed Docu's comment without trying to make clear that changes have been made or tried to conceal the edit somehow.  Maybe the end result did not turn out as clear as he hoped, but that an effort has been made should be quite obvious.  Issuing a "final warning" in response to this is, in my opinion, an overkill and is not in spirit of AGF at all.  Were you to suggest that the edit in question could have been done better, I think the three of us wouldn't be finding ourselves in this tense exchange of couldawouldashouldas.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully submit that in view of Rarelibra's prior problems with proper talk page conduct, a final warning was appropriate in this case. If he ceases to edit the comments of others in the future, the whole issue is resolved, as far as I am concerned. Sandstein (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen so far, Rarelibra's prior problems with editing others' comments is what prompted him to include a note this particular time&mdash;a clear improvement, wouldn't you agree? Issuing a "final warning" in response to a clear improvement in behavior is, in my view, not very respectful of the person who is trying to improve.  It is so sad that admins these days more and more often tend to start issuing warnings where a gentle suggestion might have sufficed (you yourself admitted that this content dispute was rather minor).  We should be striving to do better than that...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't see a note left in this edit indicating to other readers that Rarelibra altered Docu's post. If you mean the "(note)" link, this does not point to any valid thread and in any rate its position makes it appear as though the note was left by Docu, not by Rarelibra. Even if there had been a good reason for Rarelibra to alter Docu's comments, Rarelibra should have left a separate message to that effect, signed by himself. Sandstein (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit you indicate is by Docu, attempting to state that it "edited other's comments". I had correctly entered in line-item comments as per wiki guidelines. I went back and clarified the difference between my entries and Docu's by putting in signatures by line. Nothing in that was a violation. Also, I did not "alter" Docu's comments, therefore, did I need to leave a separate message. How is it that you do not understand this? Rarelibra (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is your edit. It changes the content of a signed comment by Docu. This is in violation of WP:TPG. If you do this again, I will block you. Are we clear on this? Sandstein (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we are not clear. In fact, I think I understand the confusion. Docu placed a comment that included "comments below" when he grouped ALL of my line item comments into one mass comment (in effect, he VIOLATED the guidelines by doing this, I was FOLLOWING the guidelines). This was removed when the comments were restored to the proper position (by me) at the line-items, I then added in Docu's signature to clarify the difference. Now, do you really want to involve more administrators with your actions of threatening me? Are we clear? Rarelibra (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about the same edits. I am talking about this edit by you. Could you please explain how this edit does not violate the talk page guidelines? Sandstein (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you are free to involve whomever you want to. This does not change my intention to take appropriate action in the event of further talk page disruption on your part. Sandstein (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It can't be any clearer than the explanation above. So be it. We will involve enough to explain to you your harsh judgments and actions (while ignoring the fact that User Docu's actions actually violated guidelines by making my comments confusing in a block summation). I will initiate the RfC for your actions. Rarelibra (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I can explain it for you, Sandstein (I myself screwed up in my comments above until I invested more time to look at the whole story; something you should have done as you are the person who issued the warning in the first place). Here are the original Rarelibra's comments (those which you don't have a problem with), which Docu perceived as insertions into his comments, and moved them to the end of the thread and added a note with an explanation (notice how this note is worded; it's important).  Here is Docu modifying his own comment.  Then, Rarelibra changes Docu's comments to the original wording (the one that existed prior to Docu editing it)&mdash;that's the part you are having a problem with.  The part you are missing is that this edit was done because Rarelibra's intent was to move his comments back (because that's where they are supposed to be for any outside readers to be able to follow the discussion).  If you are not having a problem with the fact that it's OK to have one's comment inserted when addressing concerns point-by-point, then why are you still having a problem with Rarelibra's undo action, which to me looks as if he was trying to undo the whole move of the comments block, accidentally undid only one Docu's edit, and immediately corrected the situation by his next undo action?  Is the situation any clearer now?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Ezhiki describes it quite clear. I'm just tired of being threatened for something I did within wiki guidelines, meanwhile Docu changed my comments in violation and nothing is said. And afterward now - Sandstein continues to threaten me. I want Sandstein to acknowledge this situation is complete and not follow it up with further threats. Rarelibra (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ezhiki, for your detailed explanation. It does not alter what I have said before: Rarelibra has altered the content of Docu's comments, which he should not have done, and I consider the situation resolved if he does not do it again. Warnings by an administrator to take action against disruption are not threats. And that will be all, I think, that I will say on this issue. Sandstein (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is resolved due to the excellent explanation by Ezhiki. Whether or not you understand, Sandstein, is another item... though not important. I did nothing incorrect by following wiki rules. Your failure to realize that is no longer my concern... as many admins have pointed out also that I did nothing incorrect. So your threats become idle, on that point. Rarelibra (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I do sincerely hope that you never find yourself in a similar situation; one when you try making a good-faith edit, accidentally revert only part of what you intend to revert, find yourself altering someone else's comments in the process, and, despite having fixed the situation right away, finding yourself being attacked by overzealous admins who cherry-picked on the one edit they see as "violation" and refused to even try looking at the bigger picture, just to make sure that's not a mistake. I am frankly very disappointed by your stubborness to admit that yeah, maybe you were wrong to issue a warning.  It may not have been that big of a deal, be it not for the fact that your warning offended an editor who was already overly harassed for "violations" which, if you look close enough, are not violations at all, but rather honest mistakes or one-time misinterpretations of the rules.  If maintaining that you are right despite numerous evidence to the contrary is more important to you than making sure that good editors are not being harassed away (and that the encyclopedia's quality continues to improve as a result), then I am sorry to inform you that you are not a very good admin.  Wishing you all the best and hoping that I'll never have to work with you on a dispute resolution ever again,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of assault rifles AfD
I have hastily knocked together a sample treatment of an alternative format for the aforementioned page and posted it to the article's talk page. As you have weighed in on the previous version, I would invite your comments on the alternate I am proposing. Do you think this would make the page more worth keeping? Is it worth the effort to redo the whole page? Is the whole concept a lost cause? Inquiring minds want to know. OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just moved the new version of the page from talk to the actual article page. It's only about 90% finished, but I will be adding the final missing info and some new content like an introduction in the coming days.  You said you would reconsider your nom if the page was changed.  I sure hope you will since I think the new page is worth having (not to mention the fact that I just spent ten hours on it.)  Thanks.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already withdrawn the nom. Thanks again! Sandstein (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

anon harassing my edits
Hi. I just opined at Articles for deletion/Grayson Space Navy and thought I'd run a somewhat related question by you. Yesterday, I prod'ed 3 other honorverse articles and one-off anons (2 edits, really, on one of them) undid me along with other bits of editing I done in the articles. As background, be aware that this sort of harassing of my edits has been extensive; on the order of a thousand edits. Much of this is the work of User:Grawp; banned along with about a hundred socks. This occurred mostly on D&D cruft. I have rather routinely undone such edits (although I'm sure I miss some). See Mars-class, Hawkwing-class, and Medusa class superdreadnought; I have undone the anons. As I see it, such edits simply don't count. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC) emended; I was thinking of this. --Jack Merridew 09:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your sentiment at the AfD. As regards this anon edit situation, what is your question? Sandstein (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a bit unsure if restoring the prods was proper; I view the anon as a vandal, but other views may differ. If a real editor de-prods those, I'll consider AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, e.g. whom I just blocked. Banned users may not edit, and undoing their edits is always fine in my book. Sandstein (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; the redink account seems to have validated that this is harassment and should not count as a de-prod. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) now tagged as suspected sock and not red; Jack Merridew 08:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

seems to be a few more
Care to review and block; Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All done. Sandstein (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * (you mean to have that #top in your sig's talk link? i.e. enable link and disable bold on your own page?)
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no, I never noticed that until now. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen others using it; it really serves no purpose other than subverting the disabling/bolding of the talk link when used on this very page. I expect you copied the sig code from someone. Rather recently (well, months) something got tweaked and talk page links are now part of the default sig, so you could clear your sig pref and get a standard talk link; I don't think sigs need talk links and have my sig set to just do the user page link. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

and yet more today
Care to review and block; Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:AIV blocked'em. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

another batch; last one still needs blocking. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Sandstein (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, I will be away most of next week and would appreciate if you would consider keeping an eye on the group of articles the above have be reverting me on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try, but I can't promise much due to being busy IRL. Sandstein (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance for whatever you can cover... Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

them prods

 * Mars-class
 * Hawkwing-class
 * Medusa class superdreadnought

Could you please review the recent history of these three articles. I prod'ed them and they have been repeatedly vandalized. While I believe that pairs of anon IPs (but the same user) have be working on de-prod'ing this much as the others did, I expect that the waters are so muddied now that prod'ing is not viable. Feel like taking some of these and/or some of the other obviously non-notable stuff to AfD? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather wait until the Grayson navy AfD is closed. Sandstein (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised that's not gotten more comments. Maybe most of the honorverse fans have moved on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * would seem to be User:Grawp too per its first edit and the current top entry in this log; the third edit de-prod'ed one of the above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably, but not quite unambiguously enough for me. Sandstein (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep him watchlisted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for doing the speedy delete on my ill-advised article about Tensor Engineering. Lumbergh (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. For future reference, db-author is faster. Sandstein (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thank you! Sandstein (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proxy
Is my understanding correct about what should be done to banned users who solicit editors to proxy for them? -- Fyslee / talk 15:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if this user were indeed to act in the manner you describe, he is already indefinitely blocked. What else do you request? Sandstein (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't a banned user who continues to use his talk page to do anything other than defend his banning be prevented from exerting an influence on Wikipedia through that talk page? I'm suggesting that the page be protected so the banned user can no longer access the page for improper purposes. -- Fyslee / talk 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no need for that. He is not banned, just indefinitely blocked. The talk page may be needed to process other, more well-founded unblock requests or to otherwise communicate with him. Until the talk page is actually abused, I will not protect it. Sandstein (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I assumed that violations of WP:TALK, violating WP:NPA, and outing real life identity in an edit summary would be reason enough, especially from a blocked user. I guess policies don't count here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Diffs, please. Sandstein (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Rappingwonders
98E has a history of fabrication and impersonation, claiming to be everything from Trey Parker, a 37 year old man, a 10 year old boy, a 20 year old guy, and an 11 year old boy. The unblock was very correctly denied. Look at the talk page of any of his socks and you'll see they always get protected when he makes unblock requests. The current one reads like a joke and he's used the same excuses in one of his other socks. Spellcast (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the info. Sandstein (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG
Thanks for taking a look at the PHG block. If you'll check the complaint at WP:AE, you'll see that there's actually a long list of reasons why PHG was blocked, not just the creation of the article. I hope you won't consider reversing the block, on a simple technicality like "what is the definition of medieval". Even setting aside that point, the issue remains that the created article was a coatrack, was not backed up by sources, and that it was basically a large copy/paste of information from the already existing France-Japan relations. A better way for PHG to handle things would have been to just suggest a new section at Talk:France-Japan relations, but he did not do that. This is the kind of behavior that led to the ArbCom case, and we still have editors cleaning up dozens of other articles. It is very demoralizing to see that PHG is creating even more problems, before we've even finished cleaning up the old ones. And his new article aside, we have plenty of other block-worthy actions: PHG re-creating a page in his userspace that was just deleted yesterday via MfD, and continuing to defy consensus on the talkpages of multiple history articles, which is a violation of Remedy 4 in the ArbCom ruling, and further exhausting the editors who are engaged in "PHG cleanup". I think it's important that we look at the spirit of the ArbCom ruling here. At no point has PHG indicated any remorse for his actions, nor has he indicated that he understands and accepts the ArbCom ruling. Instead, he keeps introducing questionable content, arguing for the re-insertion of old content of his that was removed, and making long tirades about how the ruling was unfair.

Let me know if you'd like further info, --Elonka 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your information. I've replied on PHG's talk page. (As an aside, I do not think that sanctioned users need to accept an ArbCom ruling; few do. Instead, we can only request that they obey it.) Sandstein (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry I didn't Make It Clear. I felt Thegingerone was erasing Some of My Comments Because of their Defense.
I do want more justice, and I want to get my points across in a proper, civil manner. I agree completely with your policies, and I do want Wikipedia to be encyclopedic, and not a gossip page. I, however, don't think Thegingerone is looking for that.Kevin j (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you Sandstein for your courageous support against my block on my Talk Page. Not so many people have been able to see through the storm of accusations I have been subjected to, but you were one of them, and I can't thank you enough for that. Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Note, though, that this does not mean that I support or endorse any of your actions, including those that led to the ArbCom remedy. Too, you might have been unblocked sooner had you made your unblock requests in a less aggressive manner (remember WP:AGF). I recommend that you try editing in areas that have not even a remote connection to medieval history for some time. Best, Sandstein (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Les Urbaines
Hello! You deleted the page Les Urbaines, which is indeed a page about a swiss art festival. What was the problem with it? (Sorry I'm new). Regards Patrick--DoppelPAt (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima
As I stated on the talk page, I was the one who encouraged him to make a new unblock request, so it's not fair to blame him and protect the page. I asked him to try again with less heated wording, focusing only on the block and not on the dispute related to the block. -- Ned Scott 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did not read you that way. Still, after three unfounded unblock requests and extensive, confused wikilawyering per e-mail (including a notification of an "official complaint" with the Foundation) I do not believe a fourth unblock request would achieve any useful purpose. The block will expire soon anyway. Sandstein (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There was only two denied unblock requests, IIRC. The 3rd was removed before it was reviewed, in favor for the less heated one. Like you said, the block will expire soon anyways, but I thought I would try to clear up some possible confusion about this. Cheers -- Ned Scott 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I declined the third together with the page protection, because, to the extent it was understandable, it was without merit. Sandstein (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that's true at all. What's happening here is that we have a frustrated user, and admins are waiting to unblock him not based on the necessity of the block, but because they don't like how he responded to them. Things like protecting his talk page escalates the situation. Threatening to extend his block further because he is e-mailing you also escalates the situation. I understand that we normally expect blocked users to be apologetic, but wether they are or not shouldn't have anything to do with the request. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the protection from User talk:Ottava Rima as it has the appearance of unfair dealing to fully protect a talk page and then have two admins proceed to post comments under any circumstances. The protection wasn't a big deal in my mind (though I could be be biased as I've had a run in with this user earlier in the week - which led to me following this whole mess), until the admins posted.  Sorry for mucking around with the way you were handling this.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi, Did you refuse the Avigdor Liberman edit request based on editprotected or the BLPN ?

Can I catch you on chat somehow and explain the situation?

Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I reacted to the editprotected tag and was not aware of any BLPN discussion. Sorry, I do not use chat; I prefer to work completely on-wiki. Sandstein (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, can you please re-examine the case though - there is a BLP issue for which I first requested help. Changes in the article since my request was raised have been superficial and have not resolved the problem. Here's the link to the issue: .  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That page has not been edited since my declining the request, and accordingly I do not see what I should reexamine. Could you please make a new section and explain what specific text must be removed for which reason? Sandstein (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The text is under Avigdor_Lieberman.
 * The currently valid and related diff is this one:
 * From the current text, there's 3 BLP related issues -- The relevent explanation: Talk:Avigdor_Lieberman -- 2 of them are explained in my first comment and later on the third one is explained also.
 * Basically, either the material should be reverted to my NPOV rephrase that removed the problems - or that all three parts should be removed.
 * I hope this clears it up some, and also that you can fix the BLP issue until editors can fix the problem on talk.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this is not clear enough for me to work with. Please proceed as requested above - for each specific BLP issue, please make a new subsection on the talk page, quote the exact text at issue and explain why it violates WP:BLP. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case
Please note that I filed a request to amend my case at Requests for arbitration. Best regards PHG (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)