Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 18 March 2010 (→Appeal by Matthead: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Happy Purim!

Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Formatting error on AE?

Hi Sandstein, could you please look at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Meowy - below that users AE thread is a new thread for AE, but it does not seem to want to format properly. Could you please take a look at it for me. Cheers, --Russavia 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if Russavia can file this AE request because of his editing restriction. The last thing I saw was this: . If needed, I am ready to answer.

With regard to several articles he mentioned, all my edits were fully explained and discussed at the article talk pages. They were made to improve the content and according to our policies. And it least in one case, I struggled with a vandal. At least one of the users involved did almost nothing in this project except following my edits.

With regard to the second claim by Russavia, I had an email exchange with another person (I do not even know his real name) who suggested to make a number of specific changes in several articles on the Chechen subjects I am well familiar with. I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I never acted as "meatpuppet". All edits were made by me, I verified all sources (which does not prevent some occasional errors), and I am willing to discuss any changes as time allows. This is all consistent with WP:IAR and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Which exactly policy did I violate?Biophys (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Russavia, the formatting issue seems to be resolved now. Biophys, please make any statements with respect to Russavia's request in the WP:AE thread, not here. If you believe Russavia's request violates the sanctions that apply to Russavia, as indeed it might, you may make a separate enforcement request on WP:AE about that.  Sandstein  20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not want filing any AE requests to avoid unnecessary confrontation.Biophys (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My "topic ban" expired a week or so ago. The editing restriction mentioned by Biophys above was a partial lifting of the topic ban (which has now expired). Thanks also Sandstein, User:Amalthea‎ was kind enough to help with the formatting. Cheers, --Russavia 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to note that the ban has expired.  Sandstein  20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Embassy in Moscow

I am currently reformatting List of diplomatic missions in Russia to add dates of establishment of embassies and other missions, and I am missing the date for the establishment of the Swiss embassy in Moscow. The Moscow mission website doesn't have the precise information that I need, but it does state that relations were restarted in 1946 - although relations resumed in that date, the date of establishment of the embassy may be different - e.g. USSR and UAE established diplomatic relations in 1971, but it wasn't until 1987 that the UAE opened an embassy in Moscow. As I believe you are Swiss, and because you definitely speak German, would you possibly be able to help with finding a definitive date (year) that the Swiss embassy in Moscow was established? Your help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Russavia 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The date of establishment of the embassy was 1946. The first source I could find through Google is  Sandstein  20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, a big help. Can I ask what your search term was for this? I have some other "german" related searches to find, and it may come in handy for when English and Russian searches don't yield the required results. Cheers, --Russavia 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked for "schweiz botschaft moskau 1946" (switzerland embassy moscow 1946), operating under the assumption that the embassy was most likely established in 1946, and it turned out that it was. The French equivalent, "suisse ambassade moscou 1946", would also have worked.  Sandstein  21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jano rajmond (talk · contribs)

Haggar was, at the time, a prolific page move vandal, and to circumvent the restriction on new accounts (i.e non autoconfirmed) being able to move pages, he registered new accounts and would make 10 edits to their user page, before commencing page move vandalism. This was also done with sleeper accounts, those that had never been used and for a while, it was routine to keep an eye on accounts making a number of edits to their userpage in quick succession.

It may well be the case that this user has no involvement, but I'm suspicious that the account was registered in June 2007, no edits were made with the account until June 2008, and now the unblock request comes in March 2010. I don't believe the account would pose a serious risk to the encyclopedia now, with the new mechanisms in place to prevent page move vandalism etc, so I've no objection to the user being unblocked. Nick (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense, and the user fits that pattern. I'm declining unblock.  Sandstein  13:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I am the person who possesed the account User:iaaasi and I want to ask you a favor:

I understood my mistakes and the reasons for my block and I changed my behaviour. Since I started my new account, User:Ddaann2, I started making only constructive edits, as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ddaann2. Even if i made all my edits in good faith, the user User:Squash_Racket reverts my edits, even if it's obvious that they are constructive, judging them by the author, not by their content. He claims that I am a banned user and I have no right to contribute on wikipedia (a fact which is theoretically true)

Can you please check my last contributions on the new account and unblock my old one if it is possible? I am not here to make disruptive edits. Thanks in advance (Ddaann2 (Ddaann2 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Indef-blocked for block evasion, advice left on user talk page.  Sandstein  14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you have commented on the issue previously (as evidenced at this page), this is to notify you that I've made a proposal here to formally community ban Mythdon and restrict the number of appeals he is entitled to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Something I noticed

I am new in wikipedia and I have already been through many reports since people have the tendency to report me for almost anything they can think of and in each one I come "clean". Yesterday I found that really weird . This Greek user who was gone for so many days came back only to support another Greek user's report and to help another in an article. I don't know about you but that it would be naive to consider that something "common".--— ZjarriRrethues —  07:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. What do you want me to do?  Sandstein  08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

. Where should I go to make a similar report?--— ZjarriRrethues —  08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that another user's conduct warrants sanctions, you may make a report at WP:AE as per the instructions there. But you should make such reports only in cases of severe or persistent misconduct, or the report is likely to be ignored.  Sandstein  09:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Noone has ever reported you ZjarriRrethues (...have the tendency to report me).Alexikoua (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one has ever reported me then what is this?or this . Sandstein I intend to examine closely past discussions and edits of users and then I'll decide how to proceed--— ZjarriRrethues —  10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues just initiated a major deletion barrage in Albanian nationalism ]. He also declared that he is revert-read without discussing and rejecting entire bibliographies in Talk:Skanderbeg, beeing aggresive from his very start of his wikilife.Alexikoua (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I explained thoroughly in the talkpage and I plan to rewrite the whole article. Please don't accuse of things I have never said .--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read this: Misplaced Pages:Discussion#Avoiding_disputes (...Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it.), massive deletions without having started a discussion can be easily considered higly disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it weird that IPs without previous edits are reverting me ?--— ZjarriRrethues —  12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You should ask for semi protection.Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At WP:RPP. Please continue the discussion among yourselves elsewhere.  Sandstein  15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned?

Sandstein, I addressed every single accusation. Please read what I said about your decision. I think you are hasting as I still had to finish my defense. How is giving barnstars to users who fight "against EXTREMIST editors" going to be a pattern of battleground? --sulmues (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you said that you are "ready", so I consider your statement complete. We are not here to do any fighting whatsoever, be it against perceived extremists or others.  Sandstein  08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but after that user:Alexikoua made further accusations, and I had to address those as well. And I am very far from doing any fighting: I endorsed through a simple barnstar a user who fights against extremism without giving in and by being civil. That is the opposite of battleground. Please read all the accusations made and my response: I addressed every single one and I am convinced that you will reconsider. --sulmues (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awarding barnstars to editors who battle against other editors, no matter their reason, is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and given that he has already told you "no", I don't see how you can think he will reconsider.— Dædαlus 08:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you left a template in my talk page. This edit is to clarify that my comment above is Behavior related, not Content related. As a result, you as an admin, might be interested in reading it. I had collapsed it earlier to make it easier for you to manage your talk page. --sulmues (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I've struck my warning.  Sandstein  15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --sulmues (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note I wanted to remind you of this message that I once sent you (see "here"--sulmues (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, you can certainly demand excuses, but nobody can be forced to make excuses, so if I were you I wouldn't bother.  Sandstein  15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your attention needed

Sandstein, I got this highly insulting message from User:Matthead on my talk page . Not only was my edit in good faith but it is also a completely correct one, "West Germany" simply does not exist anymore. If Matthead does not like the name "West Germany" he should nominate the article for a move or a deletion instead of claiming that "West Germany" still exists, it's a complete nonsense. Anyway even if my edit would have been wrong, the accusation of "stalking" and that i make "recommended" edits are very uncivil and so is the threat that I should retire. I request you enforce Digwuren sanctions (civility).  Dr. Loosmark  08:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested Matthead's comment.  Sandstein  09:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark is stalking me, trying to provoke me into responses that can be used for reports at ANI or an admin, pretending he was insulted highly insulted. He has a habit of showing up at articles he has never edited before, to revert me, or for provocative talk. Here are some recent examples:

• 1 February 2010 Sněžka this is english wikipedia
• 16 February 2010 Talk:All-time Olympic Games medal table all the infamous things that the Nazi-Germany did (like for example murdering 6 millions Jews
• 16 March 2010 West Germany rv. ever heard of unification of Germany? West Germany does not exist anymore.
• 2 November 2009 West Germany Undid revision 323369268 ... (reverting my edit. He also edited the talk page, backing up Jacurek.)

In doing so, he follows the example of (among others) User:Radeksz and User:Jacurek. The latter, after having recently been blocked, is block-shopping Are you going to also block Matthead for this personal attack on Polish editor?. As for the EEML recommendations, see e.g. messages 20090713-1736 20090714-0207 20090807-1139 20090809-1626 in which they discuss ways to get me blocked or restricted. Speaking of the EEML, it is rather interesting what they thought of Loosmark when he showed up:

• Radeksz in 20090603-1033: "Loosemark's actually doing quite a good job of keeping the heat on", in 20090611-0841: "Loosemark's pattern looks a lot like Molobo and Poeticbent (as well as other Polish editors like Space Cadet and Witkacy)", and in 20090630-1500 "I emailed Loosmark and told him to be careful".
• Digwuren in 20090603-1245 "If I didn't know any better, I'd suspect Loosmark was Piotrus' sock."
• Jacurek in 20090630-1919 "I think Loosmark may be invited to join us soon"
• Tymek in 20090630-1941: "My hunch is that Loosmark is already here."
• In September, there were threads titled "LOOSMARK should be invited here", " Russavia and Loosmark", ""!!Loosmark needs support ", and also "Sandstein may need support".

In conclusion: Loosmark needs to be sanctioned for repeatedly violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. And, Sandstein, as also Loosmark and the EEML seems to believe you are somewhat sympathetic to them, one wonders what you will do in your capacity as administrator, only able to address conduct issues? I remember that you asymmetrically sanctioned me last year, but not my Polish opponent. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as Jacurek points to on his talk: Loosmark is also suspected of stalking Dr. Dan and/or Skäpperöd, see the recent history of Herbert Norkus. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This does not address your edit cited by Loosmark. "Stalking" is a serious allegation, and is not substantiated by this statement. For this battleground conduct I am now blocking you. The EEML case is over and I'm not dealing with it here. Loosmark's edits cited by you are not prima facie problematic; they appear to reflect content disputes which should be dealt with per WP:DR. The nationalities of all involved, and the silly nationalist content disputes that all of you engage in, are of no interest to me. If there are further problems involving Loosmark they should be reported, with diffs, on the appropriate noticeboard.  Sandstein  22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

Sandstein, Varsovian's rant has absolutely nothing to do with Matthead's incivility and my request above. I ask you delete it out, he is free to open a separate request to you and then I will reply to his allegations. I won't do it here because then the issue will degenerate into the usual mess.  Dr. Loosmark  12:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't have a discussion about the content dispute here; I am not in the least interested in that. In my capacity as administrator I am only able to address conduct issues, anyway.  Sandstein  09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You attention also needed here

With reference to the above section and Loosmark's statement therein, would Digwuren sanctions (civility) apply to an editor who has already received a warning with regard to incivility and failure to AGF if said editor were to accuse another editor of bad faith editing (stating "your edit is nothing but a provocation." ) or to lie about another editor's statements (claiming "I guess the positive thing is at least that you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" as you did the last time I have encountered you." , while the actual statement is at ) or to repeated accuse another editor of POV pushing (making statements such as "You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" and "as you try to POV push into article" )?
If an editor who had already been told "Any subsequent violation of Misplaced Pages conduct norms in this topic area may result in sanctions being imposed without further warning." did all three of the above on a single discussion page, would sanctions be in order?
And if that same editor who had done all three of those on a single discussion page were to then repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ( and ) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" , would sanctions be in order?
One additional point, is describing a post by another editor as a "rant" considered civil? Varsovian (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Too long, too many questions. If you believe there is anything warranting sanctions you may make a report to the appropriate noticeboard.  Sandstein  15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it shorter and ask just one question:

• Loosmark has been warned about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL .
• Loosmark accused me of bad faith editing ("your edit is nothing but a provocation." ).
• Loosmark repeatedly accused me of POV pushing ("You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" and "as you try to POV push into article" ).
• Loosmark lied about my posts ("you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard"" , my statement is at ).
• Loosmark repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ( and ) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?"

Is any of this acceptable under WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not have the time to investigate what appears to be mainly a conflict about content. Please refer to WP:DR. Certainly accusing others of racism is bad conduct, though.  Sandstein  15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. You're right in that Loosmark and I are in dispute over content; however, my concern regards the way in which he conducts himself in this dispute & how he conducts himself in other discussion. I'll take a couple of days to consider whether to report to the appropriate noticeboard. Would Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement be the right place given that Loosmark has already been warned about WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Matthead

You might want to check out this. NW (Talk) 03:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)