Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:50, 7 April 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.

Interaction ban violation

I'd like to bring to your attention this edit please. The user calls the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), "worthless article" that was not deleted only "due to the prevalence of bloc voting". The user is well aware of the fact that I have started the article, and contributed the most to it . This is the article that was nominated for the deletion by the very same user. The most heated interactions between the two of us have occurred on the article's talk and the article's deletion request. I understand the edit restrictions imposed on me by my interaction ban as being restricted to make any comment on anything concerning the other party that could cause negative feelings and the wish to respond by the other party. The statement in question did cause negative feelings and the wish to respond. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is a violation. Expressing an opinion about an article is not an interaction with you, no matter whether or not you created the article. The point of an interaction ban is not to protect you three editors from negative feelings, it is to protect the rest of us from the disruption generated by you three. Since you are topic-banned anyway, I recommend that you unwatch all potentially conflictual pages so as to prevent these negative feelings.  Sandstein  05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but IMO this situation is very similar to this one:

The user very politely commented on the image File:Raven Manet E2.jpg by Édouard Manet that came from Library of Congress

and the block which was blocked for the violation of interaction ban.

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not change my assessment in this case.  Sandstein  07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So a comment like this edit posted by Mbz1 above, which insults and is intended to insult the author of the article (Mbz1), as well as anyone who does not accept Factomancer's personal judgment (it's a worthless article) and referring to others as a "voting bloc," (insulting) does not appear as a battlefield and a "baiting" post to you? Mbz1 is asked to swallow what is clearly (meant to be) a personal insult at the risk of violating the ban herself? Stellarkid (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, your comment here has the effect of continuing the dispute, which is not helpful.  Sandstein  06:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it just doesn't seem fair to me, is all. I see the "baiting" issue as important, since it appears to me to be done with some regularity, and if it is not acknowledged for what it is, it will just continue. But I will say no more. Stellarkid (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban breach?

Is this edit a breach of Mbz's topic ban? It is worth noting that this edit is part of an edit war, in which the same text has been inserted and deleted by several editors over the past couple of days. RolandR (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 Topic Ban Violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Blocked; please take any further discussion among involved editors off my talk page.

Hi there Sandstein, I fear your topic ban on Mbz1 is not being respected ... I am currently in an edit dispute with another editor at article Rothschild family and correctly using the talk page to resolve this. I have just user:Mbz1 noticed has reverted a Zionist/Israel issue] without even bothering to discuss at the talk page and making allegations of POV. After all that's gone on over the last few weeks I fear Mbz1 is not getting the message. Regarding my input to that article, I am avoiding a tit-for tat edit war by using the talk page and will not revert for a day t allow discussion. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a question Sandstein: what is the purpose of the 12 hour clause in the interaction ban, and why is it not being enforced? Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it not?  Sandstein  16:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok scratch that. What is the purpose though? Breein1007 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. You should ask the person who proposed the sanction.  Sandstein  16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting how this process works. A highly partisan editor in the I/P disputes, in this case RolandR, informs on Mbz1 to Sandstein. RolandR has nothing to lose, because if Mbz1 gets blocked, RolandR gets rid of an editing opponent, and if she does not get get blocked RolandR loses nothing and is no worse off than before. Sandstein, and other administrators, in playing along with this revolting process of editing opponents snitching on each other, encourage editors to continue to act like nasty children, and exactly in situations when adult behavior would be so valuable. The entire process is very dysfunctional. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, anon, for the unwarranted personal attack. I may be mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge I have not been involved in any editing dispute with Mbz. If you think I have been, please point out where, and how this invalidates my comment above. Otherwise, please desist from such an assumption of bad faith.

On the matter at hand, I observed that Mbz appeared to be in breach of her topic ban, and asked an independent admin (and one, by the way, who recently blocked me; I didn't look for one I considered to be "sympathetic") whether this was indeed a breach. My comment was later, independently, reinforced by a second editor. If there are sanctions, it is important to all of us that these are observed, and your description of this as "revolting... snitching" is uncalled for. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are an editor who participates on the P side of the I/P dispute articles. You informed on Mbz1 (who edits on the I side of the I/P disputes) to an administrator, and that was apparently with the intent of having her blocked, because that is why users inform. How often have you informed on P side editors for violations of sanctions? 173.52.124.223 (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you have a proposal, I take it, how this situation could be handled better?  Sandstein  17:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think having editors invest time in getting each other blocked and banned is good? Or would it be better if they were trying to find compromise editing agreements to settle their editing disputes? - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we admins can't do this for them. If they can't manage to work together like adults, we do have to block and ban the most disruptive of the lot.  Sandstein  17:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You think trying to remove an editing opponent, by requesting a block, is something other than disruptive? It would be different if these editors really cared about violations of sanctions. But they don't care. I have never yet seen an editor in a dispute who report someone on their own side for violating sanctions. Somehow it is only the violations of the other side that get reported. So the request and the block are, themselves, disruptive to the flow of editing, and make compromise even less likely. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate that arbitration enforcement is currently pretty much an adversarial system. But this has at least the benefit that the opposing sides police each other. It is not, as such, disruptive to report an editing opponent for disruption, even if the report is motivated by the desire to remove an opponent from the game, because the net result is still that there is less disruption in the system. I have, however, proposed at WP:WPAE a framework that could serve to mke enforcement more proactive and less reactive.  Sandstein  18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "the net result is still that there is less disruption in the system".

Au contrair. The net result is:

1. the existing editing mess
2. articles that are not informative, but attempts at propaganda, and
3. the exit of all truly neutral editors (who are quickly offended by the brutality of the existing situation), while editors on the two sides fight it out in a zero sum game that does nothing but mirror the meanness of the I/P conflict on the ground.

173.52.124.223 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is messy, but this is not really of Sandsteins making. Whatever decision he makes in trying to ensure that people respect the policies and sanctions, someone is bound to get upset, the last week or so his talk page has been full of people either pushing for sanctions or railing against the injustice of it all. In applying the sanctions in the most literal, broad sense possible he has, at least, ensured that editors realize that actions have consequence, even if unintentional. Let me ask though, 173, if Sandstein stumbled over the edit of Mbz1 by himself, do you think he would have acted differently? You yourself are more than welcome to join the discussions that are floating around, like here or here, if more people did so then perhaps we could move forward in a more cooperative fashion.Unomi (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote above is critical of the situation, but I tried to phrase this without placing blame because I understand that everyone involved intends to do good. The result, however, is not good. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

is the result not good? I would disagree. Although I agree there is much contention with partisan editors one the actual content of articles the real time wasting and disruptiveness has come from maybe 2 or 3 editors starting up incessant Arbitration Reports in order to try and get bans and blocks on editors that don't edit according to their political agenda. Mbz1 has been one of the worst offenders at this. I was the target of one of her obsessive campaigns here and I wasted an enormous amount time defending myself against it. Others were also targets. And I agree with RolandR that using terms like 'revolting' and 'snitching' is uncalled for. You could also try logging in and revealing yourself. Vexorg (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The apparent attitude of this edit is: If they do it to me it is bad, if I do it to them it is good. Of course, every editor sincerely believes that their views are good and correct. From that it follows that the views in disagreement must be wrong.

Certainly, I think I am right about the I/P conflict, and opposing views are wrong. But to resolve the issues in disagreement we need the ability to follow that up with these thoughts:

1. "Even thought I think I am right, this opposing view may be correct also."
2. "Even though it seems to me that this opposing view is wrong, what I think is correct may also be incorrect."

It seems to me that point no.2 may be even more important than no.1. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

question on deleted page discussion

How long does the discussion page on a deleted page remains for all to see?--Lesbossons (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely.  Sandstein  19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Sandstein, if it is not too much of an imposition I would like to request that you monitor my edits and comment directly on any problematic behavior on my part, no matter how slight. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is too much of an imposition. I have trouble enough monitoring my own edits, let alone those of others, and so I can't do that.  Sandstein  20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what you want is a mentor. Sandstein could probably point you in the right direction to get information on that. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In truth, I am trying to ensure that the narrative which will lead to future accusations of tendentious, disruptive behavior is followed now, rather than have to be pieced together later. I also personally have a distaste for coming running to admins at every perceived slight so having a neutral party watching will save me from some of that. I don't have any objection to having a mentor, but having seen that mentors are often later accused of enabling behavior I would rather that such a person be one immune to such invalidations of opinion. Unomi (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You could always try spending more time on the talk pages. I find that bringing new people into a debate settles it one way or the other pretty quickly if one side is being unreasonable. If you can convince someone else to make the edit you want through force of argument, you won't have to take any blame later. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dog Police

Noticed you were the one who deleted the Dog Police article. I have more information on it. According to Youtube account melslifetv the song was later adapted into a television pilot staring Adam Sandler & Jeremy Piven early in their careers back in 3/30/90 also called Dog Police. That plus the original song and band which was well known and infamous, if not successful, on MTV makes me want to say reopen the article with the limited information presented and follow it up with a Stub notice, and hopefully someone with some concrete information out there can fill in the missing information. The Skunk (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dog Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dog Police for lack of reliable sources. Since you do not propose such sources covering the subject in some depth, the article cannot be recreated at this time. Notably, an anonymous Youtube account is not a reliable source.  Sandstein  20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal

At first I did not care so much about topic ban (I hardly edit in on this topic anyway), but because it was enforced so vigorously here's my official appeal:

Topic Bans in General

As it explained here "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say that users subject to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy ..."

May I please ask you to provide the differences to confirm me repeatedly violate policy in the topic area of my ban?

My ban in particular

I was topic banned by you for this edit that has absolutely nothing to do with the :topic of my ban.

As you explained "As Gatoclass says, these seem to reflect a bona fide content dispute about what the sources say, and Mbz1 brings them up here in a manner that gives the impression of having the intent to associate Gatoclass with Holocaust denial, and at any rate misuses the AE process for the discussion of a content dispute, which AE is not for. This has got to stop. While the soap issue is probably outside the scope of WP:ARBPIA, it being brought up here is part of a pattern of battleground conduct by Mbz1 mostly in an ARBPIA context. To stop this, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions I am hereby topic-banning Mbz1 from all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, broadly construed and without exception for reverting vandalism or BLP violations, for three months."

My understanding is that I was topic-banned for "pattern of battleground conduct by me mostly in an ARBPIA context". May I please ask you to be more specific about "battleground conduct" by me. Gatoclass was advised as the result of AE I filed, which means that you have admitted there was at lest some merits behind the request. What other "battleground" are you talking about? This AE was the first ever I have filed. I filed only one AN/I on the editor involved in the topic. This report ended up in the editor indefinitely blocked.

A crime and a punishment

Based on the differences I provided I would not have called Gatoclass the Holocaust denier, and I am sorry, if I sounded that way, but I do believe that his opinions on some subjects are biased.

If you believe that the differences I provided is a punishable offense, may I please ask you to come up with a different kind of punishment except banning me on the topic, that has absolutely nothing to do with the "crime" itself. Why, for example not to block me, or topic ban on everything concerning the Holocaust?

If my appeal is granted, I am mostly not going to edit the topic areas anyway. I hardly did before, except two small historic articles I've started. I've never been the subject of any AE request.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the ban is not to punish you but to prevent disruption to the project. My assessment is that continued contributions by you in the I/P area would lead to continued conflict and disruption, as partially reflected in your block log, and as exemplified in your edits mentioned by Yazan in the section below. I believe that you do not edit in bad faith, but you appear to be very strongly emotionally invested in the topic at issue, and you have a tendency to melodramatically cast yourself as the victim (see, e.g., the images and poems on your talk page) instead of reflecting on whether your own conduct is appropriate. This causes you to have great difficulties interacting with others in a manner appropriate to this collaborative project. The ban, therefore, is intended to lower the stress level of both you and everyone else on the project by helping you to contribute in areas where these problems are not manifest, such as through your excellent photography. For these reasons, the appeal is declined. I will not continue any discussion. You have been given the instructions on how to appeal in another venue if you so desire.  Sandstein  18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I respect your right to stop continuing the discussion. So my message below is not for you to respond, but rather for the record. Is it only me, who sees something strange that the very same so called "violation" of my topic ban, a single and insignificant edit at the rarely viewed article was reported by three different users so far? The edit was soooo insignificant that at least two of the reporters were not even sure, if there was really a violation, yet they reported it nevertheless, and you acted on it! If it is not wikihounding, what is? The unfair topic ban you imposed on me only plays in their hands. You've done a great job in "lowering the stress level on me". I really do not know how to thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable language

Sandstein, I am contacting you here because you seem to be the most involved in the recent flare-ups in the IP area. I saw this edit summary on my watchlist, and I thought it was very inappropriate, until I saw what was before it. I can see that the user is frustrated, but it is no excuse for this behavior. I take offense as a Wikipedian, and a marxist. I am not asking for any action but to warn Mbz1, and maybe try to cool her down a bit. I was going to post this on her talkpage, but this was her response to another user who did. Best. Yazan (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yazan, please stand by while I evaluate this matter.  Sandstein  18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I agree that these edits are entirely inappropriate. However, simply because I do not wish to be the single administrator to pile sanctions upon sanctions on Mbz1, I ask you to raise this in another appropriate venue, such as with another admin, the ongoing WP:WQA thread (where I will note my disapproval) or, especially if this continues, WP:ANI.  Sandstein  20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this shall suffice. It has already spiraled into more than I wanted it to anyway. I hope her topic ban will help Mbz1, see things more clearly in retrospect. I hope you had a good sweat at the gym. Best. Yazan (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent AE Discussion on I/P articles

I apologize if I was being a bit brusque. Once again, I understand why you would extend a topic ban to Mbz1 but I do not understand why a topic ban, or even a permanent ban, would not be extended to Vexorg, who is openly disseminating hate speech and promoting wild conspiracy theories, right on that actual AE discussion page. If you have any insight into that, I would appreciate it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

These are very serious accusations. Please be advised that you may be blocked without further warning if you again make such accusations against other people without at the same time providing very convincing diffs to substantiate them. Please do so now.  Sandstein  18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

'hate speech' ?? - Now that is an offensive accusation. I don't do hate speech. I think you should apologise Plot Spoiler. I would also call for a block for Plot Spoiler for that. I ma very offended Vexorg (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration warning issued. No further action required at this time. I recommend that you both disengage from each other now.  Sandstein  20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you would like me to prove you diffs or just drop it? You're pestered enough Sandstein, so if this isn't worth pursuing I understand. I also apologize for what can be perceived as inflammatory remarks given the lack of evidence presented. I forgot how sensitive these issues can be. I will provide one diff and since its unclear if this should just be dropped, I do not mean to violate the letter of your word. Not sure if its the appropriate sort of evidence but please ignore if you wish.

• In this diff the user Stellarkid extensively notes Vexorg's egregious behavior. Vexorg responds with this comment in which he states that espousing the idea of a Zionist Occupied Government is perfectly legitimate: "Actually no it isn't Plot Spoiler!!! I don't think ZOG is anti-Semitic. Why? Becuase Zionism does not represent all Jews. JOG would be anti-Semitic. Zionism isn't a race it's a political ideology so criticism of it cannot be racist." He says "I'm entitled to my opinions" but to me this seems extremely problematic to say the least. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed not unproblematic on the face of it, but too complicated to resolve in the margin, as it were, of an AE request or on this talk page (and therefore I ask you both not to continue discussing this incident here). If you believe immediate action is required, you may request it in the appropriate venue; otherwise, it is my intent to examine the recent I/P disruption more closely at WP:WPAE if it is kept in the current deletion debate and to determine whether action is required against the involved editors.  Sandstein  21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Take it at your pace as I'm sure you've got enough on your plate and I'm sure you are doing your best deal with this in the most balanced fashion as possible. I don't want to crowd the AE page with even more of this I/P battleground stuff. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that a] there has been no evidence of hate speech to support Plot Spoilers offensive accusations and b] I have now disengaged here as requested. Vexorg (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hi there Sandstein. Mbz1 has been reported for two very offensive messages posted at editors talk pages. It looks like a quick admin involvement would prevent those reports from escalating. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have to get to my gym now, and I will not let my schedule be dictated by this circus. I'll take a look at which, if any, problems remain outstanding when I return.  Sandstein  18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban infringement?

G-Dett

This appears to be a clear violation of G-Dett's topic ban (which includes Talk pages of articles related to I-P articles) as a result of he Samaria ArbComm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.79.68 (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New section created. Please link to the decision imposing the topic ban.  Sandstein  20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48h.  Sandstein  21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

These people just ain't gonna let up

Hi there Sandstein,

I can only imagine the level of your 'sigh' while reading this, but it's clear these people just are not going to let up with their disruptive meldramtic and largely substanceless reports at ANI. Here's the latest one and it's targeted against myself this time. I've left a brief comment but I really am going to avoid getting embroiled in such a ridiculous waste of time yet again. Misplaced Pages is quickly becoming a huge kindergarten and I want no part of this aspect of it. I just want to edit and while I realise my edits are controversial by editors of a certain political bent I cannot do anything but stick by my convictions. You are no doubt aware of the close relationship between Mbz1 and Stellarkid. I shall leave you to attend to this new report or get another admin to attend to it. I am not interested in joining yet another pissing war between two factions on Misplaced Pages. Thanks and you have my sympathies. Vexorg (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Latuff image

Concerning the Carlos Latuff cartoon image on RolandR's user page, it could easily be interpreted as referring to Israelis as Nazis because many Latuff cartoons do just that

The caption included with the image on RolandR's talk page, is not part of the image as Latuff created it. The caption was added by someone else. The link with the caption in no way supports the quote

It seems possible that the Latuff cartoon, combined with the quote, was included in a way so that users on the P side of the I/P disputes would understand that the "Nazis" referred to are Israeli Jews, while all others would understand it as a repudiation on Nazi-like hate speech against Jews. I think it is almost certain that Latoff, when he created this cartoon, intended it to depict Israelis as modern day Nazis. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, whatever the merits of the cartoonist or his other images, the image as currently displayed is not sufficiently divisive to warrant arbitral sanctions. I understand it as referring to actual Nazis (why else would the figure hold a Palestinian flag?). By the way, have you ever contributed with a user account?  Sandstein  16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)