User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/April

Finkbeiner test
Could you help me, perhaps? I'm the Finkbeiner of the Finkbeiner test. I'd this article to link to my original post. Right now, it links to a re-post of my post on another site. This subject has gotten a lot of attention and I'm happy for Christie Aschwanden and Double XX Science to get most of it. But would you mind adding this link? http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2013/01/17/5266/ The title of the original post is What I'm Not Going To Do.

I tried to do this myself but my html skills are rudimentary. As is, not even there.

Thank you for considering it.

Ann Finkbeiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKath (talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, done at . Regards,  Sandstein   17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Karen Hill
Please see Talk:Karen Friedman. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mail call

 * Thanks for the notice. Sometimes it does show, I suppose, that English isn't my first language.  Sandstein   08:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My banning appeal
Thanks for sorting out my AE appeal. This is the first time I have done this. Rumiton (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Israelophobia
Would you object if I were to redirect Israelophobia to Anti-Zionism? If anyone has a problem with that target, they can take it to WP:RFD. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the AfD closure: "Whether to redirect, and where to, is not clear from this discussion." As the AfD closer, therefore, I have no opinion to offer, and neither do I have one in my editorial capacity.  Sandstein   21:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocking Momento?
Hi. I'm not sure I agree with blocking Momento for violating his topic ban by participating in Rumiton's AE request. Momento is involved in the incident over which Rumiton is appealing, and his contribution to the discussion was (IMO) relevant and useful to the community in order to evaluate what is going on. While it is true that this is not Momento's AE request — and that one could argue that Momento should not be allowed to participate because he is not required to participate — my initial impression is that this would be splitting hairs in this case. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but my opinion is that the only way to fairly enforce such restrictions is to enforce them to the letter, or one invites gaming and acrimony in the long run. The only (possibly relevant) exception to topic bans, per WP:BAN, is "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". Because Momento's statement did not address a concern about their own ban, but rather about the ban of Rumiton, the statement did not qualify as legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. Additionally, looking at Momento's recent contributions, most or all of them appear to be related in some way to disputes related to Prem Rawat.  Sandstein   07:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point, but in this situation, it's difficult (maybe impossible) to draw a clean dividing line between Rumiton's ban and Momento's ban. They were banned as part of a single action, and Rumiton's ban appears to have resulted in great measure from editing done by Momento.  Denying Momento an opportunity to speak on this matter may make it much more difficult for those reviewing Rumiton's ban to get a full picture.  Please reconsider your position.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true that their bans were imposed jointly and apparently in connection with each other, but nonetheless each editor's conduct (and sanctions) must be examined strictly on their own merits. But I'll lift my block if Momento indicates that they want to want to appeal their own ban in conjunction with Rumiton's appeal. Then, but only to the extent necessary to explain their objections to their own ban, they may also raise concerns about Rumiton's ban.  Sandstein   07:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Collage of movie posters evoking Wanderer above the Sea of Fog.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Collage of movie posters evoking Wanderer above the Sea of Fog.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Content vandalism of "2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea" article by Italian origin IPs
Kindly help do something about the severe content vandalism. I have tried to revert the page to it's last stable situation but it has been repeatedly vandalised with POV text over the past 48 hours.81.240.143.138 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw this probably too late. Please use WP:AIV to report ongoing vandalism for a quick response.  Sandstein   13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Being an editor apart of the Game of Thrones series, can you please come and join the discussion over on Talk:List of Game of Thrones characters re Gendry and his place on the characters that would be great. MisterShiney   ✉    15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine-conflict issues in German WP
Hello Sandstein. May I draw your attention to this problem in the German WP? Your point of view as an admin in the English WP who has dealt with Israel-Palestine-conflict issues may be of value. Your input would be greatly appreciated – at least by yours truly, Ajnem (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this mostly looks like a content dispute, and I only have a limited (layperson's) understanding of the substantive issues behind the Israel-Palestine conflict, so I'm unlikely to be able to contribute much. My expertise is primarily with addressing conduct disputes in the context of our arbitration enforcement framework. But because the conduct rules and dispute resolution mechanisms on de.wp differ substantially from those on en.wp, my expertise is not very helpful on de.wp.  Sandstein   13:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, ich habe bloss gemeint, dass du vielleicht etwas darüber sagen könntest, wie die Erfahrungen in der en.WP mit dem was du als "arbitration enforcement framework" bezeichnest in Bezug auf Israel-Palästina sind. Die de.WP hat bisher nichts Vergleichbares, und ich möchte eben erreichen, dass man so etwas in der de.WP einführt, nur speziell für den Themenbereich, ohne die englische WP zu kopieren, das versteht sich, man ist da empfindlich. Gruss, Ajnem (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can give input about my AE experience at de.wp, if needed, but I think that your request concerning a particular content dispute isn't the right place for that. If there's ever a Meinungsbild (RfC) or similar broadly scoped discussion, feel free to ping me again.  Sandstein   15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But you wouldn't be interested in getting a discussion leading to a Meinungsbild started? I don't mean now on my admin-problem thing, which by the way is not a content dispute but a content of admin decision dispute, but eventually. The problem is, that more likely than not, if I make the suggestion, it will be rejected off hand. Cheers, and thanks, Ajnem (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I am not active enough on de.wp to make useful suggestions on how it should reorganize its sanctions system or to know whether that is even necessary.  Sandstein   17:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My vote was forgotten
My clear support for lifting of Rumiton's ban seems to have been forgotten. I hope you will reconsider the count. I am a minimally involved editor and only for a short period of time. Thank you.(olive (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

AE board
Hi Can you look at here:. The first three/four bullets are really about the violation, but the rest is about why his ethnic map is ridicolous (for example erased half the Kurds from Kordestan province and all the Armenians from the current Nagorno-Karabagh/surrounding regions). I am sorry it is alittle long, but I had to explain some details on how his self-created map does not correspond to the sources he is citing for the map (this shows falsification of sources to create nationalist exaggerated maps) --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I normally wait for the defendant to have time to respond before evaluating an AE request.  Sandstein   17:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay but he is not that active in English Wikipedia..but I will wait.--Xodabande14 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick question if you do not mind. What is the usual time-line given to defendant? --Xodabande14 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just be patient please, as long as the other editor does not edit we are not in a hurry. And in the meantime, could you please shorten your submission? It's too long. In principle, all you need is a list of dated diffs and a brief explanation why each diff is problematic, not a novel-length exposé of your views about sundry disputes and conflicts.  Sandstein   19:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks...I divided into four section. The long section is about how the user creates exaggerated maps and inserts them.  I have asked Folantin and Dbachmann to also comment there.  So if they do, please feel free to ignore it.  But to make it short..note the user has erased for example all Armenians from Nagorno-Karabagh region (a topic you might be more familiar with than say Iran) in the maps he inserts.  --Xodabande14 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Khoikhoi is an administrator. How else could he block Ebrahimi Amir for being an SPA. See his talkpage and he gave Ebrahimi Amir the first block. I have shorten the request but it is important to note that creating nationalist ethnic maps in wiki commons and the reverting other users and forcing them in articles without discussion are all connected. I needed to explain the nature of the ethnic national map (for example has erased all Armenians from Karabagh and other groups from the region..). Yes I hate to point this out, and it might sound silly to you, but it is bad behavior to makeup stuff and then put them in Wikipedia, revert other users who disagree with him and not discuss his edit. --Xodabande14 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to right here, but just for your information. The person I filed a complaint against is now is well aware of the AE motion. I asked him to comment again. Instead though he tries to defend his self-created map (which cites nationalist sources) against scholarly maps of University Columbia and Texas map and non-scholarly sources. You can be the judge of it on the talk page. Either way the talkpage also shows it is pointless. The person was blocked for being SPA. He cites websites, and numerous non-scholarly non-WP:RS sources to justify a POV. I do not expect you to have full knowledge of the area, but you can ask someone that. I wrote: "Also per your block log, you were supposed to discuss (and get feedback) controversial edits before reverting. Not after three-four days when there is an AE motion." which I mentioned to him. --Xodabande14 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop making your case here. You have submitted your request, now please stand back and let administrators determine whether it is actionable.  Sandstein   18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I just wanted to inform you that the user is now aware of the case.  Thanks.  I won't write anymore and comment on the AE board..--Xodabande14 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

E4024 again
Hi Sandstein. With the block recently expired E4024 has again breached his ARBMAC restrictions: and. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  02:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh well, time for a longer block.  Sandstein   19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Brianhd71
I agree with the sentiment. Perhaps it's not always best to consider WP:ROPE, but that's what I did. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A reasonable approach, if you have the article watchlisted. Regards,  Sandstein   19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one approve of your suggestion at AE to request an arbitration case. I've felt for a while like that's necessary, but other editors have told me I shouldn't do it because I haven't had an account for long enough. (I edited for more than a year as an IP, but that evidently doesn't count.) I've hoped someone else would agree with me there should be a case, and request it themselves.

It's important to realise that although there have been lots of recent declined requests about race and intelligence, in all of them lots of uninvolved editors and several arbitrators have said a case is necessary. I'm not sure I understand why one hasn't been opened yet. There have been many more than these four, but four good examples are this arbitration request, this one,  this one,  and this AE thread. Some uninvolved editors who said in those discussions that Arbcom should examine these issues were A Quest for Knowledge, ErrantX, SB_Johnny, Seraphimblade, and Youreallycan. Both of the times Arbcom proposed a motion to make the one-way interaction into mutual bans, the motion failed because they felt a full case was necessary, and several arbitrators said they would support opening a case if someone requested it in 2013. ErrantX said in those requests that he planned on requesting a case, but said in this comment that he changed his mind because he was threatened.

There's something wrong with the idea that an arbitration request can be prevented by threatening the admin who was going to request it. But if you think there should be a request, you could pick up where ErrantX left off. After reviewing these discussions, do you think that's a good idea? Akuri (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you mean me, I'm not aware of being threatened by anybody. Thanks for linking to these earlier requests, but they seem to have only limited overlap with the editors now making allegations in the AE thread. If the AE request does not result in a referral to the Committee, then everybody is free to make an arbitration request of their own, but I can't venture a prediction as to whether or not that would be helpful, or likely to result in a case.  Sandstein   21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I meant ErrantX was threatened, not you. From what he said in the linked comment, that's why he didn't request arbitration. There might be limited overlap between those requests and the current one, but many of the issues are the same, especially Mathsci's battleground conduct and his apparent gaming of other editors' one-way interaction bans with him. Akuri (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, after the AE thread was closed (in my view prematurely), some of the discussion that occurred there is continuing here.

Now that the AE thread has been closed, what is your final opinion about whether matters should be taken to Arbcom? If you think arbitration would be premature at this stage, then I'll wait, and for now try to keep contributing to R&I articles in the abysmal editing environment. But if you think a case is necessary, as I said above I would greatly prefer if the request could be made by an AE admin instead of me, because I've been told by multiple parties that an arbitration request should not come from someone who's had an account for as little time as I have. Akuri (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My view hasn't changed from what I said above.  Sandstein   17:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Socking issues

 * The user Mors Martell was blocked indefinitely by the arbitration committee. Any IP socking edits can be removed per WP:DENY. Restoring them as Akuri did is not permitted per this arbcom motion. That motion is specifically about the kind of trolling by banned users that happens around editors who have been involved to WP:ARBR&I (specifically me). Disruption so far has been from a number of banned users (Echigo mole, Mikemikev, Ferahgo the Assassin, etc). The motion is clear enough and enabling the trolling of banned users is not allowed. Akuri did it once before with a blatant ipsock of Echigo mole in this edit. He also removed the "suspected ipsock" tagging. My suspicion is that the ipsocking is some kind of disruptive trolling stunt. Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He restored the edit of the banned editor twice. At this point he could be reported immediately at WP:AE for contravening the arbcom motion and would presumably be blocked. He's been told about the sanction the first time he restored Echigo mole's edits as an IP hopper; and again in an edit summary when he restored the edits of the Mors Martell ipsock. Is Akuri possibly playing his part in the stunt? Mathsci (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, no one else appears to support your assumption that Mors Martell is a banned user. There was no sockpuppet investigation, no mention of this in the block summary, and you tagged the account as a sockpuppet more than a month after it was blocked, seemingly on a whim. When I asked you why you tagged the account more than a month after it was blocked, you refused to give a reason. The motion you mentioned applies only to banned users. Mors Martell is indefinitely blocked, but not banned. Your removing his comment, as well as my own comment, looks a lot like you trying to hide the evidence that your tagging of the account was wrong. Akuri (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He was blocked by arbcom. This diff of AGK and his edit summary are completely unambiguous. That is what makes him banned. Whether he's somebody else's sockpuppet is a different issue, and the tag is just an educated guess. You're not even allowed to discuss what the ipsock wrote in the diff. You did exactly the same with the Echigo mole trolling, when you enabled the sock troll by harassing Dougweller on his user talk page. Mathsci (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How clueless do you think I am? The diff that you linked to shows that he is indef blocked by Arbcom, and that's all. An indef block is not the same as a ban. The motion you linked to applies only to banned editors, so it's completely irrelevant. Akuri (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Once an account is blocked it means they cannot edit wikipedia even through ipsocks or sockpuppets. Is that not absolutely clear to you? The circumstances of the block and its relation to WP:ARBR&I mean that other editors cannot restore those edits. I don't see why you should have any particular concern with Mors Martell or whose sock he might be. What's all this about? Mathsci (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe Mors Martell shouldn't have commented anonymously. But we're talking about whether I violated the motion by restoring his post. I did not, because the motion applies only to banned editors, and Mors Martell appears to be indef blocked but not banned. Your suppression of the evidence that Mors Martell is anyone other than who you think he is matters to me because it's the best example I've seen yet of how corrupt this topic area is. I'm very close to giving up on it until something improves about it. If driving me away was your goal, congratulations, it's working very well. Akuri (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The edits are not open for discussion. Arbcom blocks are very rare and are described here. The arbitration block of Mors Martell was made with the edit summary, "You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account is being used only for trolling, disruption or harassment." There's no reason to doubt that description. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests/Clarification and Amendment
Hello. I have a request here. You can add your own comments.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎
Am I reading this right? A sanction can be overturned "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard". Since the activity being discussed is my sanction (not Wikipedia or editing in general), the division is between those editors who were "involved" in my sanction, and those who were "not involved". In this case, the editors who were involved in my sanction were BotNL, Steven Zhang and me. So those editors "involved" in the sanction are not included in the consensus. Only "uninvolved editors" are counted for the "clear, substantial, and active consensus". Thanks. MOMENTO 08:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please link to the discussion you refer to which resulted in your sanction.  Sandstein   09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the section on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎ page which explains the requirements for an appeal to be upheld. I am also interested whether a sanction can be applied without evidence of wrongdoing being provided as per "The Principle - Burden of proof and personal attacks" as stated by ArbCom which states "the onus is on the sanctioning editor to provide the evidence to prove his claim" . The reason I ask is that it appears that this requirement is not always followed and as "Level of Consensus" makes clear "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. MOMENTO 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you ask of me, advice or some action? And about what? (See also WP:GRA.) If you want my opinion about whether certain editors should be considered involved or uninvolved in any discussion about an appeal of sanctions by you, I can't give a definitive answer, as that would depend on the interpretation of any of their thousands of edits that could be considered an indication of bias.  Sandstein   21:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we take the Rumiton Sanction for example, you have counted Steven Zhang is an "uninvolved editor" when he was "involved" with BotNL in the decision to sanction Rumiton and me. So he doesn't count for the consensus. You have said that Olive is "involved" but she had nothing to do with Rumiton's or my sanction and none of her edits indicate "bias". So by my tally we had Sandstein, Rich Wales, KeithBob, Jayen, Cailil and Olive agreeing the sanction should be lifted and IRWolfie the sole "uninvolved editor" for keeping it. So a 6 to 1 majority want to end the sanction, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". Am I missing something? I don't feel confident to appeal in this arena when so many errors are made. And what is your position on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page? Are you the only admin who manages this page. Thanks. MOMENTO 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment illustrates that being "uninvolved" is very much in the eye of the beholder. I suppose that in most discussions we won't be able to come to complete agreement about who is involved and who isn't. So, yes, you'll have to risk a certain margin of error (or rather, disagreement). As to your other question, I have no particular position at WP:AE, it's just that I am one of the few administrators who regularly replies to requests made there.  Sandstein   17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The procedural notes are very clear - Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action". In this case Rumiton is involved because "he is in a current dispute with the sanctioning editor" and TBotNL and Steven Zhang are involved involved they are in "a current dispute with the sanctioned editor", being either side of a sanction. All the rest are "uninvolved" because none of them are or have been involved in any dispute  related to the contested enforcement action". It is clear that a 6 to 1 majority wanted to end the sanction and that is a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". Even if you discount Cailil because he might change his mind that is a 5 to 2 majority to lift the ban. Still a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". This isn't going to go away, the figures speak for themselves. MOMENTO 21:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
This is a clear violation of the topic ban. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.81.209.10 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I note that both the IP above and The Devils Advocte have been edit warring on the AE page. I myself have made two reverts but will make none further. Can you please address whether or not the report is valid. I suspect tgat there should be some sort of action taken against TDA for personal attacks too, but tgat's not my call. A cursory reading will show quite clearly tgat his claims against me are false, at the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.100 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not obvious from the text of the article as of the previous version before Russavia edited it, that there's a connection to Lithuania. At least I cannot see, why it should be listed at all within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Estlandia, it was clear from the context of the article that the person was a diplomat to Russia. Ryan Vesey 19:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic ban that Russavia is subject to covers "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Eastern Europe, broadly construed across all namespaces" – that is, not only material related to Lithuania. The article is within the scope of the topic of Eastern Europe because it concerns an ambassador to Eastern European countries.  Sandstein   20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Russavia clearly doesn't have any intention to abide by his arbitration restrictions and he is unfamiliar with WP:INVOLVED. Isn't it about time to have a ban discussion? Ryan Vesey 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, being unfamiliar with admin policy isn't disruptive conduct, and topic ban violations can be counteracted with escalating long blocks (I think a year would be the next step), so unless there is some other concern I don't think a site ban is necessary in a preventative sense.  Sandstein   20:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBPS - Pseudoscience
Hi Sandstein, I think your decision in this case is a insolence. Your explanation, "(...) especially considering that no cogent explanation of what is supposed to be the "point of view" promoted through this list has been made on the talk page" showes that you have only minor understandig of the issue. I won't accept you jugdement. Is there a way for me to object it? -- WSC ® 16:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you just did. Your objection is noted.  Sandstein   17:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you get me wrong! I think your judgment was wrong, I want it to be delated. -- WSC ® 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, consult with another admin, or wait for Sandstein to reply. But you just outright saying you won't accept an admin's judgement will only earn you a block. gwickwire  talk editing 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've thougth about a ANI. But if Sandstein is empowerd to order me be quit, I want to make sure he really understand what he did in this case. I'm also don't know what to do know? What's allowed what's prohibit (by Sandstein or other admins)? If this Admin has the currage to forbit me to speak, and gave my opponants the right to delate my discussion-section and warn me about somthing, he has to descirbe what is allowed to me now. Now my opponants have the right to add me at the ARBPS, I have been warned, thats a serious case for me now. Sandstein don't ever waiting for a statement. Thats insolent. -- WSC ® 18:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All he did was warn you of discretionary sanctions placed not by him, but by The Arbitration Committee on pseudoscience. If you don't like the discretionary sanctions, don't edit in that topic area. gwickwire  talk editing 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwickwire is correct. The warning is maintained for the reasons given at WP:AE.  Sandstein   19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That means you are entitled to warn me, but that doesn't mean you are right to warn me. You as admin have the right to bann me or warn me or whatever. But that dosen't ment you are always right. Don't confund that! In this case you are not right. And I havn't warring, I have always discuss that on the talkpage. -- WSC ® 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fully support Sandstein's measures here. Widescreen is one of the most disruptive editors on the far-left infested German Wikipedia, enjoying the full Narrenfreiheit there, who recently has been trying to spill over his activities here, as the recent request reveals. Sanctions were definitely needed, cf her blocklog.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban proposal for User:Russavia. Thank you. Ryan Vesey 22:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Scrutiny evading accounts
There have been so many accounts created to evade scrutiny related to Russavia. It's ridiculous. Can a CU be run to block the master? Ryan Vesey 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have checkuser access, but checkuser can be requested via WP:SPI. Though it appears likely that the most any scan will find is a bunch of throwaway accounts and open proxies.  Sandstein   05:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia's talkpage
Don't take this the wrong way, but could you at least bring this up at AN for a review of the removal? You're very very much so involved, and removal of talkpage access is almost never going to be an AE issue (where involved would less be relevant), so it's in my opinion a bad block. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been removed, I'm just saying if I were you I'd have left it to someone else to do so. gwickwire talk editing 05:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet heard an explanation of which edits by me could make me involved, in the sense of WP:INVOLVED, with respect to Russavia. It appears that Russavia removed a question by about this from their talk page without answering it, which seems to confirm that not even they believe that there is an answer. As it is, I don't see why I should not take any administrative actions that appear necessary to prevent further disruption by that user.   Sandstein   05:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've given them two AE blocks (if I remember correctly you made both) and came under fire for them both times, and you've been massively involved in the discussions ensuing thereof of the blocks. Therefore, you're involved. That doesn't prevent any simple AE violation blocks, but a talkpage removal is not an AE issue, therefore merits discussion, especially if you made the original block and then came under fire for said block. gwickwire  talk editing 05:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. Per WP:INVOLVED, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." That is, taking administrative actions, and discussing these actions with people who disagree with them, is part and parcel of an administrator's duty. Doing one's job can't be grounds for involvement, and neither can the mere fact that administrative action have been the subject of criticism. Because AE actions, especially discretionary sanctions, involve an exercise of judgment, it is natural and to be expected that such actions are criticized, especially when they occur in a conflict-laden environment, as most AE actions do. However, I fail to see how criticism of such actions by others can be seen as a sign of bias on the part of the administrator being criticized. If mere criticism could make an administrator involved, there wouldn't be many uninvolved admins left on Wikipedia. Finally, I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between AE blocks and talk page access removals. If I were involved, which i consider I am not, I should have refrained from either action.   Sandstein   06:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I also think the action was overreaching. Blocking the user for editing an article about an Israeli topic (which is not in Europe and is not a clear violation of his topic ban as far as I can see) just because it also falls in WikiProject Lithuania is, as far as I am concerned, just looking for an excuse to block an editor that you don't like. This is the sort of action that is the very reason I absolutely hate the term "broadly construed" in so many of the determinations. I think in this case the determination to block them was just wrong unless you were just looking for a justification to do so. Kumioko (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and think you are not being fair. This is not 'Can Sandstein do Anything Right? Week', nor is it an opportunity to haul Sandstein over the coals. Whilst Russavia edited a superficially an Israeli topic, Sandstein has clearly demonstrated that the link to 'Eastern Europe' is indeed strong. I think on balance that Russavia was testing the limits of his topic ban, and it is quite correct that he should have been stopped. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 11:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, it also needs to be taken into consideration that Sandstein approached Russavia asking for an explanation. Presumably, if Russavia himself legitimately thought it wasn't a violation, the story here would have been different.  Instead Russavia's battleground response was "Ummmm, how about NO. I'm not feeding the trolls. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them; much like I am going to do with your request". Ryan Vesey 12:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He made those replies to those who stalk him looking for any little stuff that could cause a block of Russavia. He actually (I'm not going to find the diffs, but it was multiple times in multiple places) said that he didn't see how editing the article when Russavia had no clue the article subject was of an Eastern European nationality was a violation. Regardless, the talkpage block was not an AE action (as the block summary would suggest), and considering the multitude of discussions about Sandstein and Russavia in the past I'm convinced he's involved. Not just that, but he did not wait for Russavia to respond to his troll allegations (which he did by explaining his definition of troll was stalker in this instance) before removing talkpage access.. I'm not saying that Russavia didn't deserve his talkpage revoked, I was only saying that Sandstein was one of the least problematic persons to do it. AN(/I) is watched by many admins that would've been happy to review the situation for Sandstein. gwickwire  talk editing 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fair to say Ohconfucius and I do agree somewhat that Russavia may have been pushing the envelope and that he was unnecessarily rude calling Sandstein a troll however I also think that the association to Europe on this was also borderline. It would be much like saying that they couldn't edit articles relating to the US, Canada or Australia because they started as british colonies and therefore feel under the European ban "Broadly construed". I honestly think it likely that Russavia will do something to warrant a block or a complete ban but I do think that we should AGF and give the user the opportunity to behave rather than twist the situation to meet a desire to block them. I think Sandstein is in too much of a hurry to block, rather than just ignore the comments. Sandstein is a well known enforcer of the Arbcom and being under an unwanted sanction Russavia likely doesn't believe that Arbcom nor their enforcers are going to give him a fair chance anyway. Historically, those who are allowed to return are nearly always found to be guilty of something because the broadly construed language allows an enormous latitude in what counts towards a violation. Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * People, if you think that the wording of a topic ban is unnecessarily broad, you (or rather, the sanctioned editor) need to convince ArbCom to tighten the wording. Until that happens, sanctions are enforced exactly according to their wording. This means that a ban from "Eastern Europe, broadly construed" will indeed cover anything that is in any way related to Eastern Europe. Really, this is not at all complicated. As regards involvement, again, because I am rather active at AE means that I make a lot of AE actions, which by the way have never (as far as I know) been successfully appealed. These actions are almost always in hotly contested areas, which means that they are automatically controversial to somebody, which in turn means that they almost automatically attract criticism (often in amusingly unpleasant terms) by the sanctioned editors and their associates. That is part of the job. However, I don't see how just being criticized makes me too involved to take further administrative action. If that were so, any problematic editor could, all by themselves, make an administrator involved just by personally attacking them, and thereby immunize themselves from further sanctions by that administrator. I am sure I don't need to explain why that would not be helpful. That's why I consider an administrator to be too involved to take administrative action only if the administrator's own edits – administrative actions excepted per WP:INVOLVED – could create the appearance of bias to a neutral observer. I take the recusal requirement seriously, but so far I haven't seen any actual argument for how it could apply in this instance. Certainly people can disagree with me about how to apply the recusal requirement, but if they do then they should appeal the sanction at issue and let ArbCom decide, rather than chanting "involved, involved" in random fora. That is both ineffectual and uncreative.  Sandstein   16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That your actions have never been successfully appealed is hardly commendatory. You are the only one who enforces arbitration so where and to whom exactly would they appeal them too? Jimbo? The WMF maybe? Just because the wording "broadly construed" is in the arbitration doesn't and shouldn't give you unlimited latitude in deciding that anything is in that scope, which often seems the case. As for the arguments being presented I doubt that I or anyone else would expect you to "think" there was a conflict. Whether one exists or not is a completely separate matter. Ineffectual and uncreative, ironically, is also how I would describe the Arbitration process and its enforcement arm. You never admit to any wrongdoing. Ever! So its of no great surprise that you would fail to see one here either. And appealing to Arbcom is a waste of time and you know it. Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, AE actions can be appealed to the Committee and to some degree to community fora, although the rules for that are admittedly somewhat unclear. If you think that an appeal to the Committee is a waste of time in every case, then evidently you disagree with the whole arbitration setup for some reason. That you are entitled to do, but because it is a mandatory and binding system of dispute resolution whether or not you agree with it, complaining about it here (or elsewhere) will accomplish exactly nothing. What you could do, however, would be to encourage other administrators to help out with AE, so that it's not only me (and a very few others) who respond to requests.  Sandstein   17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct I do beleive that the Arbitration process in Wikipedia is crap. The vast majority of cases these days are just one editor or a group of editors trying to force their way on others. It is no longer about doing the right thing for the project. Regarding helping out at AE, I do wholeheartedly agree it would be good for more admins to get involved and that is true of many areas of WP not just AE. Part of the problem is that most admins are given the toolset because they keep their heads down and do not get involved in these areas. Those that do, much like myself, are too "untrustworthy" or "lack the proper temperment" to be admins. So its a never ending, self perpetuating cycle of promoting the sheep to guard against the wolf. Also, more than one (editor and admin alike) has voiced that they feel that you don't listen to comments at AE and largely do what you want, so why would they help out? Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that they are mistaken – I always listen, it's just that I don't always agree. But there is perhaps something that explains, in part, that impression: those unfamiliar with AE and accustomed to Wikipedia's more consensual processes sometimes have difficulty with the idea that AE is, by design, a process where one administrator makes an individual decision (subject to review on appeal), and not a consensus-based process. I understand why not very many administrators want to have to take such decisions, especially considering that they will be often loudly yelled at by angry cliques no matter what they decide. But I would really welcome it if more of my colleagues would be acting on requests on their own, instead of hanging around and making comments.  Sandstein   17:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well its the impression anyway if not at least partially based on facts and encounters. It seems you see it and have a good understanding that it is occurring even if we disagree on why and how. I really do want to clarify that although I haven't always agreed with your decisions nor in your way of handling cases at AE, I don't mean for this discussion to seem like I am attacking you. As I stated above I find it likely that Russavia would at some point form their own noose but I think in this case, as is common it seems with the "broad discretion" wording, that its a bit too broad and borders on silliness. IMO its better to have an undisputable case rather than ones like this were its in an obviously gray area and only attracts days of discussions and debate. If he edited the article for say Romania or Josef Stalin I wouldn't have batted an eye at the action (and its likely no on else would have either) but this particular decision seems to be pushing the limits of the outer boundaries of that broad discretion. It doesn't surprise me in the least that I, the user and others rebelled the decision. Anyway, no need to beat a dead horse here. We have both said our piece, your not likely to change your mind (nor did I expect that) and its time I let this go and move onto the next hot topic whatever that is. Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OIC! I suppose it's your love of "hot topics" that makes it impossible to stay away from WP for any length of time... ;-) --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, either that or the fun, action packed atmosphere as I collaborate with like minded people. Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia again
Hello! As an outsider I can clearly see that zero tolerance strategy is not working. I think an explanation and a kind reproach would be much better in his case. I can understand it will be extremely difficult to change the strategy, because the situation has escalated, but it will definitely release the pressure. I am sure you are also tired of dealing with this problem. The article about Anna Aznar was only slightly connected to his topic ban. I would like to suggest to you, to change the one month block for a reproach, because now we all know how really broadly his topic ban is, so I hope nobody will make the same mistake again. Please, also take into consideration that placing information about this particular article, created by Russavia and suddenly nominated for deletion, provoke him to a strong reaction (who likes his article to be nominated for deletion?!?) - I see it as attenuating circumstances. I also think, that his topic ban is so well-known among other wikipedians, that placing such an information was inappropriate. Please, think about it and don't say no to my proposal immediately. --Seleucidis (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, it was completely related to the topic ban. There should be some stipulation that he could ask another editor to examine the PROD on the article to see if they agree with it, but he's not allowed to edit it.  And topic ban aside, no editor who makes the statement "reverting a troll who must be a tad retarded -- if they don't get the meaning of "go away you are not welcome here" after being told 3 times, might I suggest we get them neutered because such people shouldn't be breeding" should have their block reduced for any reason. Ryan Vesey 12:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You see Ryan, what I want to tell is that further escalation has no sense. So I suggest another approach, a mild one, because an eye for an eye is obviously not working. Russavia is so, some like his style, some not, he has potential to be a good editor and he proved it with his contributions, maybe he sometimes needs some coaching to keep him between the rails. The community can banned him for ever and lose one devoted contributor, but wouldn't it be better to try to cooperate? --Seleucidis (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is unusual for a brand-new account to take such an interest in Wikipedia process, a knowledge of the details about a topic ban, and in a single editor. I surmise that it is possible that this might be an editor who has been around a long time, who has had real knowledge of Wikipedia processes, and has been acquainted with the editor at issue in the past. YMMV. Collect (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 03:06, 28 March 2013: Russavia blocked.
 * 07:14, 28 March 2013: Seleucidis created.
 * 07:55, 28 March 2013: Seleucidis' 1st substantial edit is advice to Russavia's talk page
 * 1 April through 9 April: Works with Russavia on images during the latter's block
 * 17:55, 10 April 2013: a "Welcome back from your block" post.
 * 15:50, 15 April 2013: Russavia blocked again.
 * 07:23, 16 April 2013: Asks Elen of the Roads to suppress a embarrassing post of Russavia's.


 * Outright socking? Probably not.  Meatpuppetry?  Almost certainly. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Russavia started for the above reasons. Fram (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no link to Russavia. Fram, are you going to act out of character, and apologize for your allegations, everywhere you made them? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to apologize for. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick question
I'm very new to this and wish to create a page for musician/band Shoreside. I noticed upon trying to do so that the page had been previously created by someone else and deleted by you. The page said I should contact you before trying to recreate the page. Would I be allowed to create the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedude445 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The article was deleted because it was was blatant advertising, used only to promote the band. If you want to write a non-promotional article, you are free to do so. I recommend that you previously read WP:BAND to make sure that the band meets our inclusion criteria, or the article may soon be re-deleted after you create it. If you are associated with the band, you should also read WP:COI.   Sandstein   15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou. You've been very helpful. I do think it meets all the criteria, however there is an iTunes link it my page. I used it to reference the release date of the album as no other resources could be tracked down with a specific date (rather than just a month) that weren't on a facebook page. If you have any problems with the page, please by all means tell me how I can adjust it and make sure it fits the rules better if perchance it breaks them. Thankyou again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedude445 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi Sandstein! I would like to talk to you. May I, please? Am I allowed? I would not like to violate any EN-WP policies, so I have decided for myself to ask your permission first. You know, I still feel miserable after what happened to me. It was a shock and it will take a lot of time for me to recover. I await your reply to my question. Greetings. --Seleucidis (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure.  Sandstein   10:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your permission. At first I would also like to thank you that you reacted to my request to unblock my account and came to talk on my talk page. I wrote the answers for you, but I had to cancel all of it, because I was so stressed at that moment, that I made a lot of mistakes and found it not respectful to post it in such a poor state. Unfortunately the next day, after not sleeping almost the whole night, I was not able to write the answers at all. I think I own you the answers, so here they come. As you already know Seleucidis is my account on EN-WP and I have never used it elsewhere. I created it to help my wiki-colleague Russavia to go through the block. I wanted to be in disguise, because I was simply afraid he would had refused my help in another way. Al I did was (in my eyes) innocent: I gave him advice to calm down and was inserting photos (he uploaded to Commons) in the articles. I made about 50 good edits in the main space here. I did not interfere with the disputes Russavia was involved. I made about 12 edits on talk pages: one a thank you note for a wikipedian who sent me a welcome, one on your talk page - a proposal and one of the talk page of Ellen of the Roads - I asked her to oversight a statement used off-wiki to denigrate project, because such statement would be removed on PL-WP as far as I know from my experience. The rest were questions about technical problems concerning inserting photos into articles. So, as you can see, I never ever entered a single dispute Russavia was involved. Another wikipedian seconded my advice to calm down and it seemed that it was working. The unpleasant discussion stopped. I met Russavia on PL-WP, where I am known as Hortensja Bukietowa. We work there together from time to time. Here links to our talk pages:my current, my archived one, his. Although I am a tiny woman I take care of him on WP-PL, because at a certain moment there was a slight problem and I did not want it to escalate and end in a block. I often take care of newbies and help editors to make their first steps and was the one who introduced years ago the idea of Wiki-guides for new editors, the idea which I saw here. It is in my blood to take care:-) I can't help it. I am a wikipedian since march 2007 and have made 14. 819 edits . I am co-responsible for two sections on the front page (DYN and featured Good Articel) already for years proof, proof, so I am not a troll. I also wrote many new articles, mostly about Dutch cuisine and Dutch traditions. I came here to help, had good, sincere intentions and unfortunately was misunderstood. If you still have questions or something is unclear, please ask me.


 * Secondly, before I leave EN-WP, I still would like to ask you two questions. 1) Would you like to share with me your opinion about my proposal, which I posted on your talk page just before I was blocked? 2) I would like to give 3 barnstars to Russavia. He deserves them, but I also hope it will encourage him to focus on writing articles and adding valuable pictures to articles, instead of loosing time on discussions. Two of them are of national merit (Poland and Russia). May I give them to him? Won't it be considered as a violation of his broadly topic ban? I was also thinking, that it might be a good idea to place a warning on talk pages of wikipedians with a topic ban, informing other wikipedians to avoid such subjects. It will also remind the wikipedian with a topic ban, about his topic ban. Just an idea, tell me what you think about it.
 * I hope, I have explained all to you and I hope you will understand me and please don't be angry with me or Russavia. He had nothing to do with it. I would be happy, if both of you could be wiki-friends again. I will keep my fingers crossed. --Seleucidis (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that your experience on EN-WP was unpleasant. Using multiple accounts in the context of complicated conduct disputes tends to create the impression of sockpuppetry very quickly. The block issue seems to have been resolved now, but my advice to you is that you should never again use an alternate account for the purpose of deceiving others about your identity, even if you intend to do so for their benefit. That's because I'm of the view that such deception is a prohibited misuse of alternate accounts, per WP:ILLEGIT. On the basis of this explanation for your alternate account, I would have declined your unblock request. As to your proposal above to unblock Russavia because "the article about Anna Azari was only slightly connected to his topic ban", I disagree with it. The article is about a person born in Eastern Europe and active as an ambassador to Eastern European countries, so it is strongly connected to the topic of Eastern Europe; additionally, the topic ban concerns "Eastern Europe, broadly construed". I can't see any attenuating circumstances here, particularly in view of Russavia's long history of sanctions, and the exceedingly confrontational attitude he exhibits in the context of their application. The only two recognized circumstances in which a topic ban does not apply are enumerated at WP:BAN, and this is not such a situation. Additionally, having a self-created article nominated for deletion can't constitute attenuating circumstances, because per WP:OWN, the creator of an article has no particular right to it. As concerns the barnstars, you are not violating any restrictions if you give them to Russavia, but he may not respond to them in any substantial manner because of his topic ban. In general, I don't think that "reminding" Russavia or others about the topic ban is going to do more good than harm. The topic ban is a matter that concerns only himself, it's up to him to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee if he considers it's no longer needed, and others generally have no business interfering with it.  Sandstein  13:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for answering my questions. Sorry for delay, but I was thinking about the whole case and noticed that you didn't mention other Wikipedia-rules, like: common sense, Wiki-love, assume good faith and break all the rules:-) These rules must also be taken into consideration while making decisions about blocking/unblocking (be or not to be of a wikipedian). In this way Wikipedia will gain a more human face and will repair her image in media and to the outside world. Already the Romans said that law is blind and that is why law must always be interpreted in favour of the accused in a trial, as well as extenuating circumstances must be taken into consideration. Honestly, I doubt if you did that, because the outcome would have been different. This time I bring for you from Commons a beautiful Wikipe-tan picture. In the Netherlands Loesje says: het geluk vermenigvuldigt zich door het te delen, so there is never too much Wiki-love all around. I hope, you agree with me. If you want to continue our discussion, please contact me on WP-PL, you are welcome. Greetings. Wikilove2.png --Seleucidis (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Point of order, which may or may not be of any use at this point. In your (Sandstein) clarification on talk, you said "... (b) this is in fact a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account of Russavia (deemed unlikely by a checkuser);..."  If you read the note from DeltaQuad carefully, you will see that s/he did not in fact check Russavia.  You will equally note that his reasoning for this is that one said they were from somewhere else.  Without questioning anyone's partisanship here in declining to perform a checkuser on what seem rather spurious grounds (my God! imagine if all most possible targets had to do was to claim that they were from different places?  At least we know that this is not the case and this is simply a courtesy extended to IRC buddies), I simply point out that to assume that there was any special "checkuser" pixiedust behind the ruling would be in error.  Just taking a wild example, no one knows, for instance, whether anyone's using a proxy here...

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

 * You know, I think you should consider whether your rigid adherence to your interpretation of the rules is really a benefit to the project. Long blocks over individual trivialities are more disruptive than the acts themselves. No one honestly cares about Russavia removing a PROD tag from an article on a notable Israeli diplomat even if there is some Eastern-European connection. It is all about asserting authority or sticking it to an opponent, not an actual concern about the underlying change.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Banning policy, the relevant policy. Whether an edit made in violation of a ban is disruptive or not is irrelevant; it is nonetheless prohibited. It is a feature of any ban that it prohibits good as well as bad edits. If you believe that the ban has a net negative effect, you must ask ArbCom to lift it, and not me (or others) not to enforce it.  Sandstein   20:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Topic bans are not the same as site bans. No exceptions are made for site-bans except allowing appeals from the user talk page. By extension, one should show a little tact in how they approach the occasional edit that makes some trivial intrusion on some tangentially-related subject.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A ban is a ban. Whether it is a siteban or a topic ban is only a matter of scope; this does not change the fact that the ban prohibits both good and bad edits, whether or not you consider them trivial. I have noted your opinion, but I believe that further discussion would not bring us any further. If you wish to change enforcement practice in this regard, you must ask the affected editor to appeal the block to the Arbitration Committee. I believe that we have had ample opportunity to exchange our views about this matter, so please excuse me if I do not reply to any further comments that you may make.  Sandstein   21:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request
Hi Gatoclass. This is a courtesy notice to inform you a clarification request regarding procedural issues at WP:AE in which you were named as a party has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. The Arbitration Committee has indicated that they intend to review Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions during May 2013. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Zetatrans
Look I know Bobrayner is protected by a dirty favouritism racket but what exactly is the purpose of this? First, you are out of time by two weeks. Second, did you not see this? Moreover, did you not catch this? Protecting antagonists and bullying new editors that disagree with the favourite's view when there is no need. Today's warning would only have been fair had the user performed a similar action. I'm not sure I'll require a block. These last few months the more I have seen of English Wikipedia the more I am thinking of retiring from it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the warning is to make the user aware that discretionary sanctions exist. You do not help your case by making allegations that your opponent is "protected by a dirty favouritism racket", as this is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.  Sandstein   04:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Zetratrans is new and was explained his inapprorpiate conduct by me, he acknowledged the warning, all two weeks back and has heeded it. On the other note, thank you for the opportunity to prove why my edits are non pro-Serb, I hope to be back within 24 hours of your message and will do my best. But assure me one thing, if you assume a part of my editing favours a Serbian standpoint, please explain why you think that to be so I can fully provide the key difference making what I edit to be neutral and what someone with a real pro-Serb POV would do. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not adding this comment to the AE page but I thought you should know that I have reluctantly performed this self-revert. I am very upset about it too. That article alone can warrant an entire essay on how Rayner hides behind sources whilst misusing them at the same time - in addition to the fact that the sources do not claim everything being reported on the article. Where he says NATO bombed "Serb targets", so as to make the chapter look like a Serb-only venture, the citation states "Yugoslav targets" but that word Yugoslavia is a dirty word which Rayner doesn't like on Balkans articles. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Evlekis, it would be a good idea to keep discussions like this on the AE page. (I shouldn't have to repeat it yet again, but... I'm happy to use the word "Yugoslav" where that is used by sources, but the sources on that article clearly prefer "Serb"). bobrayner (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no they don't. According to the witnesses, the killings took place on themorning of March 25, some twelve hours after NATO beganbombing targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Further more, it mentions security forces, not "armed forces" which is a term you know to mean national military which despite being incorrect is your avoewed intent. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

AE
What sanctions exactly? Does it involve a block? Either way, was there a problem with the revisions I sumbitted which proved my neutrality as an editor? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please see your talk page and the discussion in the AE thread.  Sandstein   17:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
This is just to express a wealth of gratitude. Never again will I post a word that may remotely seem hurtful either to a fellow editor or to a subject. I'd like to discuss the topic ban too however I am in no rush. I am busy in my non-editing life at the moment!!! Cheers Sandstein. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:John sffs and IP:177.85.242.4
It would appear that user:John sffs is using IP:177.85.242.4 to revert other editors, thus avoiding 3rr. I will be posting warnings on "both" editors talk pages. Perhaps these "editors" should be watched by an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like a matter for WP:SPI.  Sandstein   17:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC Close?
Hey Sand,

I'm fishing for an admin to close an RfC. If you've got time, take a gander. If not, no biggie. I'll look elsewhere. Thanks in advance for the time and attention. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you list that in the appropriate section at WP:AN. I'm unlikely to have time for it though, and it does not help that I find the subject matter very uninteresting. Sorry.  Sandstein   17:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Completely understand. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)