Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:16, 4 August 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

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

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

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

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

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

Question

Hi Sandstein, I'd like to ask you a question please. I need to upload somebody's else image to be used in the article. The image is released with a free license, but the site is a commercial site, they sell those items. Will this be OK to use the image and link it to the commercial site in the source field? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a form of attribution to that company as the copyright holder... I think we can use such external links in the image description.  Sandstein  15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion wanted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Sandstein, I have noticed a couple of places where it has been suggested that preciseaccuracy (talk · contribs · count) is a returning user. With this post User:Noon has suggested that this user is factomancer (talk · contribs · count) aka factsontheground (talk · contribs · count). User:Mbz1 has also asked pa if they are a returning user went on to suggest that "precise" is not real identity and has now started referring to pa as "she" which matches factomancer's gender.

Noon highlights the fact that pa is focusing on an article created by factomancer as the key reason for identifying the two users as the same. Looking at the histories, I see that they both use edit descriptions rarely and there is a tendency to repeatedly return to a board or talk page and make additions to their posts. Factomancer was accused at AN/I of making spurious complaints and I think pa's complaint against Mbz1 and the Hebrew broccoli user was spurious. Now I notice, that the last page of history for factomancer contains quite a few posts to your talk page. I therefore wonder whether you feel that the style of postings to user talk pages and admin boards look the same. I'm asking because I've got a poor record of succes at SP/I and CU and the equation of the two users isn't my idea anyway. Noon impies that they are too busy to do the donkey work and Mbz1 has an interaction ban with facts so can't raise the SP/I. The interaction ban is 2-way, so facts would be in violation of it if she is pa. Would you care to express a view? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the forum in which such concerns should be discussed is WP:SPI, because it provides a more transparent process, ensures that all concerned are heard, and requires reports made in a format that facilitates investigation. If a user has a sock concern, it is in the first instance up to them to "do the donkey work", as you put it, and not to investigating administrators.  Sandstein  11:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein, I do have some concerns about user:preciseaccuracy. May I please file an spi request in spite of my interaction ban? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter cohen, I have briefly looked at the contribs of both accounts. Your report here is not specific enough to allow an investigation of your concern. Very general statements like "style of postings" or "spurious requests" (many people make lots of these, unfortunately) are not useful. Any SPI report should tell investigators exactly which edits they should look at, and why you believe that these edits are meaningful for an SP investigation.  Sandstein  18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and for your time. I asked because I didn't think it would be very good if it were treated as an open secret that facts and pa were the same person. (It would be particularly bad if they are different.) I thought that your personal experience of dealing with facts might make it easier for you to recognise her. But it looks as if we'll have to wait for Noon or someone else to put together a case.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be regarded as meatpuppetry/violation of the ban, if Mbz1 emailed me her reasons for thinking the users the same and then my deciding how convincing I think the case is and then raising an SPI only if I am convinced?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users applies, so in principle, what you propose may work, unless the interaction ban is worded in such an (unusual) way as to prohibit this.  Sandstein  19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If Peter Cohen believes their is evasion than it is by his own volition and not for MBZ1 that the case can be started. Certainly be exceptionally critical of anything emailed to you Peter Cohen but don't shy away from pulling the trigger if you are convinced and any evidence leads you to seek out more. Cptnono (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was me, who asked Peter to ask Sandstein here. So Peter is guilty in nothing, only I am.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please stop this immediately. I will consider you to be in violation of your interaction ban if you make one more edit related to this matter.  Sandstein  20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against user:Varsovian for breaking the interaction ban with me, here is the edit: . Even if he claims that he is only commenting Dan's post, it's clear that he inserted himself directly into the discussion I had with Dan (and quite literally too, he inserted his post between mine and Dan's which is provocative). In my opinion he is doing the exact opposite of what the interaction ban is meant to be - stay out of each others' way.  Dr. Loosmark  11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein am I allowed to reply to the request which appeared bellow?  Dr. Loosmark  12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked Varsovian for 55 hours, Sandstein -- your call on whether Loosmark gets one as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with that block. From a procedural point of view, it would be useful to explicitly label such blocks as WP:AEBLOCKs so as to prevent them from being inadvertently lifted. I'll address the request concerning Loosmark in the section below.  Sandstein  22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against Loosmark for breaking our interaction ban. Here are the edits: , , . By repeatedly arguing with regard to EB (the relevance of which I was first to question and had repeatedly discussed before Loosmark entered the discussion) in my opinion Loosmark has done the exact opposite of what the interaction ban is meant to be: stay out of each others' way. If he wished to argue with regard to EB, he should have made it crystal clear that he made no comment on or reference to me by explicitly stating that he made no reference to or comment upon any post by me and made no comment on or remark concerning or reference to me. Varsovian (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined. It is too far-fetched to construe making a reference to Encyclopedia Britannica as an interaction with you. "Explicitly stating that he made no reference to or comment about any post" by you would, on the contrary, have constituted a prohibited interaction.  Sandstein  22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unorthodox solution at AN3

Thanks for your action here. It appears very sensible, but we should soon expect claims that admins don't have the power to do such things! The link in your closure doesn't work (injunction should be changed to restriction). EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you. I think it's a very sensible solution. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of the users concerned for going along with my approach. EdJohnston, yes, admins don't have the authority to enact general restrictions... but they have the authority to block edit warriors, so as long as the restriction is in the form "I'll consider it edit warring and block you if you do X", it should work.  Sandstein  23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Tarun marwaha/ZiaFatehabadi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Tarun marwaha/ZiaFatehabadi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tarun marwaha (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. You might not have noticed, but your request at Misplaced Pages:DRV#4_August_2010, is malformed and that does not appear in the table of contents. I'll try to fix that for you. Thanks for informing me.  Sandstein  05:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoot firsth, think later.

How can you enforce a arb restriction for sanctions that have expired? ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The restriction Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted lasts for one year, i.e., until 20 October 2010. It has therefore not yet expired.  Sandstein  05:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

3) Brews ohare

Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Misplaced Pages/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken. (motion link)

   Passed 10 to 1 on 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 

His sanctions expired. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. I'll request clarification from ArbCom.  Sandstein  06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Query re Creekolp56

Hello Sandstein, I hope you are doing well. :) I was wondering if you could please leave a notification for Creekolp56 (talk · contribs) at the user's talk page, regarding WP:ARBSCI and the possible remedies therein? I have left several notices at the user's talk page, to no avail. The user continues to violate WP:BLP, by adding sources that blatantly fail WP:RS, to a BLP page within the topic of WP:ARBSCI. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that's immediately problematic. The weblink, while a blog, is a blog run by the reputed magazine Nature, and the actual source is not the blog but the television programme, Channel Seven's Today Tonight program in Australia, which is probably a reliable source. Maybe he just needs help presenting and formatting his sources.  Sandstein  07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mention

Howdy. Just an FYI I've mentioned you in passing thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Trudy Späth-Schweizer

On August 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trudy Späth-Schweizer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of action taken concerning edtior Brews_ohare

Editor Sandstein:

I have filed an appeal of your action banning me indefinitely from contributing to the pages Speed of light and Talk:Speed of light. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)