Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:47, 18 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... not working

I'm not waiting 8 hours, sorry. I don't know if that even applies to everyone or just to the editors under the ban, but I don't really care to be honest... this is out of hand. It's absolutely ridiculous what I-P is turning into on Misplaced Pages and it is largely a result of this interaction ban which is broken on a nearly daily basis. It is pitting the two "sides" against each other and it has gotten worse than I have ever seen it. The interaction ban is not working; therefore, I hope that you will do something else that can help this situation before it completely falls apart. Here are the newest violations of the interaction ban:

• I know you are already aware of the post that was made at AN/I. It had a direct mention of Mbz1 by Factomancer through diffs. It was not a complaint about an interaction ban violation on Mbz1's part, so there was no reason for Factomancer to be mentioning Mbz1. You responded at that AN/I and didn't do anything about it, so I guess you didn't consider it a violation for some reason. Maybe because she attempted to strike out and delete the request after the fact? Although personally that makes it worse in my eyes, but clearly I'm not the admin.
• Anyway, past AN/I, she put the same violation on her user page here . It is also a clear violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Soon after, she also removed this information, replacing the content with this stating that she is going on a long break. She has done this before when she has gotten herself into big trouble, only to change her mind after a couple of days and come back. As we can see, her temporary break in that case didn't change her behaviour, as here we are once again.
• I'm truly tired of dealing with this crap. Last year we actually had some sort of collaboration going on in I-P on Misplaced Pages, before we had to deal with issues like this (to this severity, at least). A combination of a few "new" users coming into the I-P struggle relatively recently have turned it into a real warzone between the two sides, and I don't like it. I don't think other people like it either. It is having an EXTREMELY detrimental effect on the encyclopedia in the I-P area, because not only is so much of our time wasted fighting and defending each other in constant AE and AN/I reports, or sitting out short bans for minor infractions, but even aside from that, it just isn't rewarding or feasible to try to contribute and collaborate anymore. There is no longer an expectation that posting something constructive on a talk page will lead to discussion from people who disagree. There is no point of making significant edits to articles because they are simply followed up by quick reverts, often with no edit summary.
• I was planning on coming up with some conclusion to this complaint to convince you to take action, but you know what, typically as of late I've even lost my motivation to do that. I just don't care; it's a waste of time and probably won't get the atmosphere between editors back to what it used to be anyway. The problem is that all you can do (or are willing to do anyway) is impose bans based strictly upon the word of the rules interpreted specifically based on the individual situation. If you took a minute to look at the big picture and understand the impact that certain users are having on the entire I-P editing community with their constant infractions and battles, maybe you would think of a different solution. Breein1007 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much battling going on. However, admins are limited in what they can do; basically they can block or ban disruptive users, but they can't make them cooperate. So, other than the current individualized rules enforcement, we have little option but to topic-ban a lot of people for a long time just to stop the battling. But I feel we don't currently have a clear overview of who such a ban would need to include. I've tried to start something at WP:WPAE, but participation by other admins so far is limited.  Sandstein  17:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you, hopefully it will lead to something in the future... meanwhile, I take your lack of comment about the interaction ban as indication that she didn't violate it by linking to diffs of Mbz1 and complaining about them? Breein1007 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably yes, but I would prefer that another admin take any required action.  Sandstein  17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty disappointing that admins can be intimidated into inaction by bad behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that I'm pretty fed up with having to do most of these unpleasant admin actions with respect to mostly quite unpleasant people. The violation (if any) in this case seems pretty transient and no other banned editor has officially asked me to act (not that I'd encourage them to), so I do not feel compelled to act.  Sandstein  20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you have a thankless job and frankly you couldn't pay me to do the volunteer work you do. I think the only way the IP topic will calm down (as much as is can calm down) is through escalating topic bans to problematic editors. On both sides. I think you've been doing an excellent job with that so far. Still, the fact that an editor through bad behavior can get admins to think twice before interacting with them (and you're not the only one who was approached with this and refused) is something that shouldn't happen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That huff by Factomancer isn't really worth going to the inordinate lengths process sometimes requires to implement effective sanctions. If they keep that up, though, I see lengthy blocks or bans in their future, as has already been the case with their principal opponent.  Sandstein  21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea if editors who don't want to see Factomancer given lengthy blocks or bans in the future do something proactive now to try to minimise the chances of it happening? Perhaps the same would have been true of Mbz1?     ←   ZScarpia   10:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork

6 months is a bit over the top, the usual block for first time socking is 1 week. nableezy - 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But then, socking in order to evade both a block and (for the third time) an arbitration topic ban is not usual.  Sandstein  17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork can be an asset to the encyclopedia. He shouldnt be pushed out, he should be walked back in. A nominal block for socking and the opportunity to file an appeal of the sanction would be, in my opinion, the best way forward. Whatever you do as an admin should be to improve the encyclopedia. This doesnt do that. nableezy - 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Drork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If this record offers promise for good editing in the future, I would hate to see a bad record. When Drork first showed up at the 3RR noticeboard in February, he seemed precociously stubborn and aggressive. By continued bad behavior, Drork is choosing to join the dark side. I think some evidence of reform, expressed on his talk page, would be needed to consider shortening his six-month block. If you are tempted to think that Drork's attitude has improved, take a look at the 'Ban Misplaced Pages' message at the top of his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at his second to last comment at Talk:All-Palestine Government (), the last one he made he did repeat the same attacks, but forgetting that, the comment linked above is exactly the type of thing we need in the topic area. It is well reasoned and focuses on the sources and the content. We need things like that in the topic area. Let me ask you, do you think things have gotten better in the A/I topic area with these bans? I dont. I see new people who are unable to do anything but google for a favored phrase and argue endlessly on the most inane points, while having no knowledge of anything that didnt come from one side or the others propaganda. Drork is a smart person, we need smart people. I say this as the person who has been the subject of most of Drork's attacks and the person who filed both the AE request that resulted in the topic ban and the SPI report that resulted in this block. Even with all that, I know that if Drork just focuses on the content he can be an asset here. nableezy - 19:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Drork can be an asset. We all can. However, he's chosen to be a problem instead of an asset, and is treated as such. If he thinks my sanction is wrong, he is free to appeal it.  Sandstein  19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You got time for an RfC review/closure?

Hey Sand. I was wondering if you wanted to take a break from arbtitrations and I/P issues and take some time to review this? If you decline for want of time, I will understand. NickCT (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I've replied there.  Sandstein  17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for permission to edit article

Hello, I would like to ask for permission to edit the article List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Of course there some laureates that were awarded for peace and they are under topic of my ban. I would not have asked for permission, but the list was nominated to get the status of featured list before my ban has started, and it was opposed by Malik Shabazz because he sees some problems with the references. I would like to add some references to the list please. May I please ask you, if I am allowed to ask some other administrators like my mentors, for example, or because the ban was posted by you I always should ask you, if I have similar questions in the feature. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In view of your recent noncompliance with the ban, as documented in your block log, I see no reason to make an exception here. The purpose of a topic ban is to remove you entirely from an area where your editing has proved problematic. I will therefore not make exceptions to the ban (and no other administrator is authorized to). However, since that list as such is not related to the conflict, your topic ban only extends to the part of the list that are related to the conflict, i.e., the laureates who were involved in the conflict. It is only these entries that you may not edit.  Sandstein  10:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right of course. I am sorry I violated the ban. May I please ask you one more question? I actually was not going to edit any particular entry. I was going to add the references to the name of the sections only. Am I allowed to add some references to the section "Laureates in Peace", and if not, am I allowed to ask somebody else to add it for me? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You may if the content that you edit is entirely unrelated to the topic of your ban. This is not the case with that section because it contains material related to the conflict. The same applies to asking others to edit for you.  Sandstein  10:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not touch this section, and I will not ask anybody else to help me out with that. I would also like to use the opportunity, and to assure you that the prior violation of my ban were made not because of disobedience o the ban, but because I did not realize how broadly my ban is constructed. I guess I do now, and I will not violate it in the feature, but if I would, I'd like to ask you to block me with all the strictness I deserve. I ought to learn how to behave at last! Congratulations on well deserved barnstar below! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For admirably sedulous administrative oversight, through the contentious Nacht und Nebel of chronic editorial conflict in the I/P area in defence of the rigorous maintenance of the highest standards in Misplaced Pages, in what will always be an unrewarding task of difficult judgement calls. Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  11:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done.     ←   ZScarpia   11:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree even with what are viewed as "pro-Israeli" editors getting in some hot water. I'll try to stay on the right side of what is expected from editors. I have screwed up pretty badly before. Nice work Sandstein and I hope the constant messages aren't driving you nuts.Cptnono (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

I have posted a request for clarification regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit. You may be interested in taking a look. NW (Talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)