User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/September

Thanks
Thanks for clearing up the unblock request. I'm not used to handling them, so thanks for fixing my mistake. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo's Talk Page
When User:Timmy Polo said the word in his last unblock request the word F***, I censored the word because I know that bad words are not allowed at wikipedia. Is that right? I was trying to keep wikipedia safe. Honorboy123 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean this? No, that was not right. Wikipedia is not censored.  Sandstein   05:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Eagles   24/7  (C)  05:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the status of AE request?
Hi Sandstein, I wonder what is the current status of this AE request ? Is it officially closed, end of story? To tell the truth, I have never seen a case to be closed by one of the partisans, subject to the request, rather than by administrators. I did not start the case and do not ask it to be reopen. I just would like to know because it involves me. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That closure appears highly questionable to me as well. But I'm not currently active at AE, so I suggest you ask one of the currently active administrators whether that request requires administrator action.  Sandstein   20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I would not ask anyone because this is not my responsibility.Biophys (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I closed the case – no administrator bit was needed. I have given my reason here and here. Now, If anyone even hinted, that the action was inappropriate or unwanted, I would gladly have reopened the case and made appropriate nose at some other venue frequented by admins to call for prompt action. Biophys came close to hinting on my talk page, but not quite. I understood Biophys wanted to be left alone. I now find him here badmouthing me. He got whacked and he very nearly got blocked for braking his topic ban. He should really think more carefully about what he is asking for. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, Petri Krohn, you should leave the closing of AE threads to administrators, especially if you are or were involved in any related disputes.  Sandstein   11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I admit to being bold. I too would have loved to see the admin in action. Unfortunately none were to be had. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * AE requests do not necessarily require closure. They are automatically archived if they are no longer edited. If you believe a thread does require closure, please ask at WP:ANI for an admin to close it.  Sandstein   11:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, I should have notified WP:ANI of my decision to close the case. (Then again, maybe I should not have.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah flag
Hi Sandstein, two years ago you nominated File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg for deletion, but it was kept as being PD-ineligible. I believe the closure was incorrect, without passing any form of judgement on the closer, and the reasons people offered for keeping the file were totally flawed. So having said that, I have nominated it myself for deletion again, and this is at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. You may not even be interested in the discussion, although your comments at the first discussion were spot on, so you may want to take a peak and if you have anything to add feel free to do so. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Could use another admin on sources issue
See: Talk:History of South Africa

Somewhat problematic user has been credibly accused of having misrepresented a source rather badly. I am waiting on a detailed response, but I wanted to see if you could review the situation and comment there if you have some time.

If you want to wait a while to let him reply and explain his reasoning, that's fine. This is early and he really hasn't had time yet to respond appropriately (just some grumpy throwaways, but not substantiatively as of yet). Nothing needs rushing here.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in on this subject. I appreciate as many eyes on the subject as possible. The the links I provided on that talk page show that Communicat's alleged source, "Fascism Today: A world survey" clearly does not even mention Hendrik van den Bergh, so it cannot source that he was head of this organization. Likewise, my link shows that "Fascism Today: A world survey" says that Broederbond was created before  the Ossewa Brandwag and that the latter organization evolved into the National Party, not the Broederbond. When Comminicat is trying to use "Fascism Today: A world survey" to support things that are not mentioned or are flatly in "Fascism Today: A world survey" that is not a content dispute, especially when other users have documented Communicat doing the same thing with other sources in other articles. Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I see that I forget to link the other talk page (Talk: World War II where another user shows Communicat has similar problems in their edits of other pages. Thank you for your time. Edward321 (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You should keep this discussion in one place, that is User talk:Georgewilliamherbert. Coming here to post more allegations, looking for a more sympathetic administrator sounds like forum shopping! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Petri, how can you call them allegations when the differences I listed proved some of Communicat's edits were not supported and others were flatly contradicted by the source he claimed to cite? How can you accuse me of forum shopping when I have posted in no forum and I was not the person who invited Sandstein to participate in this discussion? Edward321 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are making very serious allegations against Communicat. I defended him at the original discussion. Repeating the allegations on yet new pages will only lead to others following your edits.That is not a nice situation to be in. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal EEML and related evidence pages
With the EEML proceedings more than a half year behind us and editors from "both sides" if you will active again, it would be helpful for all personal Baltic and EE conflict personal evidence pages to be deleted. Please let me know if there is an appropriate formal way to request this. Thanks in advance. Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 01:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Sandstein for lurking for the third time, my deepest apologies.
 * If this is what you want, I suggest you first propose to the Arbitration Committee in Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that the sanctions and findings against me in WP:DIGWUREN be stricken out as null and void. I you do that and succeed I will give my 100% support for your request. If you get Martintg to co-sponsor the motion, I will drop any planned action to have an interaction ban placed on him. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am currently quietly serving out my topic ban. I suggest you move on. I am speaking mainly of EEML evidence pages (some quite voluminous) which individual editors have in their personal name space. I have refrained from naming specific editors so as to not make this appear personal, but to be a general request regarding any and all such "evidence" pages regardless of any editor's role in past conflict (including if I've left any in my name space and forgotten about them). If you wish to lobby to have past findings against you vacated or to escalate the conflict between yourself and Martintg, those are separate and completely unrelated issues. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 04:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Does your topic ban prevent you from interacting with me? I hope not. Anyway, I suggest you very carefully consider what I have said above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I merely responded that both your requests were unrelated to mine. There's nothing requiring consideration or interaction. I had rather hoped that editors would not look to relitigate the past, nor to look forward to a litigious future regarding some other editor unless I and that editor express support for a specific action regarding past oversight. When my topic ban is over, I will drop you a note on a graph already uploaded related to one of the articles you'd like to work on per your user page. Until then. Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that I am in a position to give competent advice about this, Vecrumba. You should ask an arbitrator or arbitration clerk. Sorry. I would appreciate if any further discussion related to that subject did not take place on my talk page.  Sandstein   05:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Best P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Beamer103
See this. It's pretty obvious it is User:Beamer103 again.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, very probably some sock. But a checkuser might help here to establish of who. I recommend WP:SPI.  Sandstein   17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Beamer103.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We need an article on winter camping
Hello Sandstein: I noticed that you previously deleted a page about winter camping. I am requesting that you allow the page to be written by Wikipedia contributors. There are many excellent sources of quality, referenced information on winter camping. Google search. DavidSpencer.ca (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * was deleted by community discussion: Articles for deletion/Winter Camping. I recommend that you write a draft article at User:DavidSpencer.ca/Winter camping and move it to main space as soon as you believe that it addresses the concerns of the deletion discussion and meets teh requirements of WP:N.  Sandstein   12:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
Is under a 1RR restriction per Digwuren, with a requirement that reverts be discussed on the talk page.

User:Petri Krohn is well aware of Digwuren (having been under its restrictions specifically, and has made reverts as  without posting the revert on the article talk page  (copying a "bold" edit by Fifelfoo of deleting more than half the entire article, and which had been reverted) and then making a separate second clear revert at,  The page is clearly marked on the talk page about the 1RR restriction, and has a huge red warning about the 1RR on the edit page.  As Petri knows about Digwuren, I doubt that any excuse can be made. The 1RR is set as a bright line, not even an entitlement, and Petri has crossed it in spades. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, please make any enforcement requests at WP:AE, not here, as per this page's edit notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I tried there - only to find the template totally incomprehensible, just let her get away with it then, or find someone to file the report (sigh). He behaviour is, however, quite deliberate. Collect (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to ask another admin, as I'm not currently active in AE.  Sandstein   15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sachet (scented bag)
I'm confused what is or is not approved for a hook on this potential DYK. Is ALT1 still approved or perhaps ALT3 or ALT4 might be alternate choices? Is the article ready to go or is there other issues that I should work on?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's up to whichever admin reviews the hook. I recommend maybe considering a hook unrelated to sleepnessness. Editors may be reluctant to put anything on the main page that makes it look like we promote quackery or any sort of questionable remedies.  Sandstein   15:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sebastio venturi
Note that Sebastio Venturi is back, promoting his theories in a variety of venues. Thought you'd be interested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully requesting your opinions and comments on an ongoing content dispute
A while back you implemented a temporary solution to edit warring at The Autobiography of Malcolm X, well, we are really stuck, and in need of an outside opinion, could you please look at the discussion and give us some opinions and suggestions on moving forward. We need a voice independant of the three of us, Malik Shabbazz, Protonk, and myself.

This diff particularly bothers me since it includes Malik threatening to edit away mine, and Protonk's additions to the article "with or without" our consent. The discussion has moved here. Thanks in advance for your time. — GabeMc (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for asking but I am not really interested in the subject matter and therefore not up to the task of reading tons of material just to form a more or less competent opinion about the issue. I have to recommend, therefore, that you use WP:3O or WP:CNB to ask for a third opinion by people interested in the topic.  Sandstein   21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadruddin Aga Khan
I want to thank you for the picture that you added to the article es:Sadruddin Aga Khan, you made me very happy. Greetings.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear it! You can thank Mr. Mandelmann, see Commons:Commons:Erling Mandelmann.  Sandstein   07:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues
Is there something equivalent to WP:AE on the Commons? Sulmues is again making unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, identical to the ones for which you blocked him and indef banned him from WP:AE a while back. Any advice on how to deal with this? I am not too familiar with how things work on the Commons. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The place to raise such concerns would be Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.  Sandstein   06:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I would like to appeal this sanction, under which you placed me three months ago (undefinitely banned from editing in WP:AE unless I am the reporting party or the reportee). However, before I do it, I would like to know your thoughts about under what criteria you would consider lifting it yourself. --  S ulmues (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it should be lifted now?  Sandstein   20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because I have used difs about Sulmues on my report about Athenean. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not ask you. Please stay out of this discussion so as not to make it needlessly complicated.  Sandstein   20:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I intend to ask for a lift for the same reasons that I stated when I asked you to lift the block : I recognized to have breached wp:npa and personally attack Athenean and his behavior by not justifying my thoughts with diffs. By the way, I do NOT ask for a lift so that I can make comments on Zjarri's AE below: I am not going to make any comments there, in fact I don't think that WP:AE solves problems with experienced users, such as Athenean. In fact, even if he is really banned, he may still appeal and lift the ban. For the behavior of Athenean on Wikipedia a request for comment on this editor by other editors would be needed to be filed in appropriate times, so that a broad community opinion can be reached and sanctions may not be easily lifted. --  S ulmues (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do not intend to comment on that AE, how do you think Wikipedia will benefit from you making comments on AE requests about the Balkans to which you are not a party? What comments do you intend to make?  Sandstein   21:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to comment on that AE, both because I believe that experienced users need and deserve an RfC, and because I think the community needs a break from my lengthy and heated disputes with Athenean. In addition I don't want to aliment further polemics and useless wikilawyering with Athenean; rather I would like to mainly focus on the improvement of WikiProject Albania and TaskForce Accounting. However, there might be further WP:AE discussions in the future between Balkanian editors and from outside, where my comments will be necessary and will assist the closing sysop. I have had the chance and pleasure to read some calm and measured comments from experienced users in WP:AE, who set things straight for who wants to read them with patience: they usually go through the diffs and do the dirty work to see who initiated the dispute, how the other party reacted, the intellectual honesty of the editors, and their overall contribution to wikipedia. I have also witnessed that the disagreeing parties and the sysop reflect on those comments, which are based on editors' contributions and properly supported. I intend to follow the example of that kind of editors. --  S ulmues (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's do this: should you ever think that you can make a useful contribution to a Balkans AE request (useful in that it contains new, relevant and well-explained facts that help admins decide whether or not to take enforcement action), show it to me first. If I agree that your contribution would be genuinely helpful to administrators, I'll consider lifting the ban.  Sandstein   22:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. Let's do that. Thank you! --  S ulmues (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to inform that Sulmues has recently gone out of control: this time he finds the opportunity to claim how unhistorical my ga articles are [], no matter this was completely irrelevant with the ongoing discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. Please use dispute resolution or, if you believe admin action is warrranted, WP:AE.  Sandstein   10:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua
Sandstein, I would like to point out to you that this edit, where Alexikoua removes comments of users, who are not confirmed socks, is completely inconsistent with this other one, where he removes the template "Troll" and wants everyone to see trolling comments of Greek editors, who offend the Albanian nation. I don't know if this is sanctionable, but I felt like I should report it to you. --  S ulmues (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We agreed to remove a small part of this []. Apart from this, there is a tremendous difference between the level of these edits. Fut. can cofirm that he is Dodona.Alexikoua (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Athenean
Today his comments led me to start an AE -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody. This talk page is not a substitute or venue for the dispute resolution process. As an administrator it is my duty to take action if people come to me with an actionable report of ongoing, serious disruption that requires timely intervention. The various instances of pettiness described above fall far short of that. These are matters that you first need to sort out among each other through the dispute resolution process. You should not expect me to understand or even be interested in your silly disputes on the basis of a few out-of-context diffs from some talk page, and you should much less expect me to immediately take the side of any of you and to block or ban your opponent for you. If you believe that (less than super-urgent) administrator action is required in any particular case, please make a well-explained request at the appropriate forum (WP:SEEKHELP), after demonstrating that you have unsuccessfully and in good faith attempted the earlier stages of the dispute resolution process. If as a last resort you find that you still cannot get along with each other, you can request arbitration and take the risk that all or many of you will be banned in various ways. But if you make too many unactionable or frivolous requests, you yourself may be facing sanctions. The same is likely to happen if you continue to snipe against one another on this talk page, only much faster and less leniently. Thank you for your attention and you may now resume normal editing.  Sandstein  20:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paper clothing
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Diplomatic uniform
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Balkanic silliness 2: Occupation of Ottoman Albania
I have responded to this request at the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard and closed a long overdue move request with a compromise move to Occupation of Ottoman Albania. As expected everyone is not happy – or at least some people may feel that they need to make some noise. I am now withdrawing from the article and the discussion and formally turning the issue over to you. I have warned the participants, that the ethnic POV-pushing attitudes shown in the discussion would likely lead to blocks and bans. If you see any disruption, I suggest you use your ban hammer freely. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the usual mess of a discussion in which I have no desire at all to get involved. I have no interest in the topic as a content matter and I see no evident and urgent need for any specific admin action. The only thing I can say right off the bat is that Angus McLellan is right: you should not close discussions in which you have expressed an opinion. Don't do this, please.  Sandstein   21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken some BOLD actions, all under the following principles.
 * I believe that the action to be taken receives unanimous support.
 * I will undo any action if I am explicitly asked to do so.
 * General sounds of displeasure do not count as a request to undo.
 * Maybe I need to paste these someplace on my talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Petri Krohn's initiative has been reverted, I've dearchived the discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian AE Case
There's been an AE request for Varsovian regarding a ban you placed on him. I thought you might want to take a look at it. You banned him from commenting on AE, in this case he's commenting on Requests for Amendment, I'm not sure if that's skirting the edges of your ban or not. Please take a look if you get a chance. --WGFinley (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bògòlanfini
-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

TY
Thank you for your comments regarding my unblock. I appreciate the understanding of the situation. Vielen Dank für Ihre Hilfe und freundliche Unterstützung. Hope I got that right.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain
You recently deleted File:Calvin Gibbs, charged with premeditated murder at FOB Ramrod, Kandahar.jpg leaving the deletion log entry: "F5: Unused non-free media: also WP:BLP problems"

Could you please explain the WP:BLP problem you alluded to?

As to it being un-used, the contributor who started the article on Gibbs removed the image, asserting the image wasn't really one of Gibbs. It was identified as Gibbs, so I have asked them to return to Talk:Calvin Gibbs and explain how they knew it wasn't Gibbs.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, the image name claims that the person it depicts was charged with murder. Such claims need to be cited. There's no place for footnotes in a image name, so image names of this sort are best avoided. Just "File:Calvin Gibbs.jpg" would have been fine.
 * There was also controversy over whether the image really depicts Calvin Gibbs, or at least one user claimed that it was not he. Per WP:BLP, images of alleged murderers need to come from a reliable source. The source identifying the person depicted as Gibbs was some blog and hence not reliable. It was therefore necessary to delete the file.
 * In sum, if you think we need an image of this person, please re-upload one with a neutral file name and taken from a reliable source.  Sandstein   05:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WRT article names, I'll keep this in mind.
 * I now concur that my source misidentified the image as Gibbs. There don't seem to be any images of Gibbs.
 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I am considering an unblock request of a user you blocked. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No objections if he shows that he's going to make non-spam edits.  Sandstein   05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Footwraps
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Need advice
Hello. I have a problem which I think can be solved only by administrators. I put two templates in the article Garegin Njdeh (my edits) to verify reliability of the sources and put the POV flag. The edits were explained at the discussion page. User:Kevorkmail reverted my edits calling me vandal. I asked him to discuss the edits (twice in the comments and once at his discussion page). His answer at my discussion page was: ''I know that you are going forward with Azerbaijani propaganda. My sources are reliable and once you find a source which contradicts with my sources just go with it and post it in the article, and do not threaten me with your Azerbaijani way.'' I am really tired of convincing him to discuss the article in a civil way. Where should I complain about his actions? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have issued edit warring blocks and uw-sanctions warnings to you both. Should this sort of misconduct continue nonetheless, you can make a request for arbitration enforcement at WP:AE, making reference to any relevant provisions of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.  Sandstein   18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues in WP:AE
Sandstein, since you asked me earlier to provide to you a trial version before you consider lifting my AE intervention sanction, I would like to submit the following for user:Alexikoua who was brought to WP:AE recently. Thank you.

In this edit of Alexikoua, he removes comments of a seemingly Albanian user, who is not a confirmed sock: such edit is completely inconsistent with this other edit, where he removes the template "Troll" and wants everyone to see trolling comments of Greek editors, who offend the Albanian nation by saying that the Albanians have no history. With the last edit Alexikoua seems to agree with the troll. I have found the inconsistency of these edits quite tendentious and nationalistic. --  S ulmues (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

--  S ulmues (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Sulmues: You are recycling the 'same' dif. in Sandstein's talkpage: [] and I've answered here []. Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sulmues, I do not think that this proposed comment would be helpful to administrators deciding whether to take enforcement action against Alexikoua, because the comment does not explain how Alexikoua violates any applicable Wikipedia conduct rule. Merely agreeing with nationalist trolls or being inconsistent is not prohibited by any policy. You do not make clear how Alexikoua is actually disruptive by making these edits. I believe your proposed comment would only inflame tempers in an area that is not short of easily inflamed tempers. Accordingly, your request to be allowed to make edits to Balkans-related AE threads again is declined. Please make any further appeals to WP:AE or to the Arbitration Committee.   Sandstein   18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --  S ulmues (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jillian Hall
Considering nobody had warned them about edit warring before I did, was that a bit hasty? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it stops the warring. Disruption-only single purpose accounts are routinely blocked without warning. I've no objection to an unblock if the user shows that they understand the problem.  Sandstein   19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not holding my breath here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Sorry to trouble you again but could you please advise whether this post violates any of my sanctions or might be perceived as violating them. Obviously, if you advise that it does, I will self-revert immediately. Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't remember what your sanctions are and am not keen to look them up all over the place.  Sandstein   16:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the ones which might be relevant are that I am topic banned from Eastern Europe (although my post makes no mention of EE or any related subject) and that I am not allowed to take part in AE (the ban on participation in any dispute resolution is, I understand, pending). Varsovian (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are topic banned, then I very strongly recommend that you stay far away from the talk pages of editors that you have had disagreements with in that topic area. I'll try to make it as simple as possible: Just. Stay. Away. This will avoid more waste of time and problems for all involved. I am very annoyed to keep seeing the same names on my talk page over and over again for no good reason.  Sandstein   18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for annoying you, that really was not my intention: I was just trying to prevent anybody from using against Loosmark what I considered to be a justified post by him (if I had wanted to annoy him or start yet another round of conflict, I'd have simply taken the matter to AE). Next time I will certainly take your advice and stay well away. Apologies again. Varsovian (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Need advice
Hello. I need your advice again about the disputed article Garegin Njdeh where the edit war happened. I offered Kevorkmail to request third-opinion about our dispute but there is no answer from him for three days. I cannot force him to discuss as he ignores my tries to find consensus. What should I do? --Quantum666 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't need the other person's consent for requesting a third opinion. Why don't you try just doing so at WP:3O?  Sandstein   10:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I just thought that mediation process needs two parties' consent. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I placed the request at WP:3O. User:WikiDao agreed to provide third-opinion and invited Kevorkmail to comment his position. As I see he is not going to do it. What should be the next step to resolve the dispute? And I have another problem with the user. Please ask him to avoid such allegations. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You should wait a few days. If the other editor does not comment on your proposal, and the editor who provides the third opinion agrees with your proposal, you have a sufficient basis on which to implement your proposal in the article. As concerns the second issue, you should not reply with "Then as you provide no sources I will remove the text you added", since that is edit-warring, as indeed both of you seem to be at .  Sandstein   18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For closing the debate on commons Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)