Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZScarpia (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 12 April 2010 (→Appeal to revoke decision based on having a WP:RS for admittedly-misplaced WP:BLP issue: -- I'll get there eventually.). 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.

User interaction bans?

Hi Sandstein. I don't know anything about user interaction bans, but seem to remember you imposing a few. Mbz1 left me a message asking if I could propose an interaction ban between herself and Vexorg. I have no idea how or where to make such a proposal. Can you help? ← George 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a ban could probably be implemented as a discretionary sanction; the place to request such a sanction would be WP:AE. Regards,  Sandstein  16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I've made the request here. Cheers. ← George 09:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid's user page

Swiss Air Force

Hallo Ich habe jetzt meine ergänzungen der beiden Englischen Versionen der MirageIII und der Swiss Air Force auf den diskusionsseiten eingetragen. Leider ist es auf der Orginalseite Swiss air Force recht viel fehelend oder gar falsch so das das nicht mit ein paar Zahlen oder kleinen Ergänzungen korrigiert ist. Ich hoffe sehr das sich dem jemand mit guten englischkentnissen annimmt.

Sehr schade finde es ich auch das vom Artikel Flugzeugkaverne keine Englische Version existiert. Meine englischkentnisse sind leider nicht genügen um da eine Englische version zu machen, ausserdem ist es sehr schwer Quellennachweise zu machen da über dies anlagen nur wenige Dokumente öffentlich sind. Vieleicht könnte man jemanden mit dem Sprachlichen können dazu motivieren ? Gruss Swiss testpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Being harassed

Hi Sandstein. I am not sure what to do about this editor who is harassing me now. Please check out his contributions --there are only a handful and totally directed at me. Also please check out the edit summaries on my talk page. Would appreciate your help with this one. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Which editor?  Sandstein  17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Urbane23 -- who is also the anon ip User:81.111.91.170 Stellarkid (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Malik Shabazz, who is also an administrator, is following the matter.  Sandstein  21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must be druuunk to have forgotten to give you his name!  ;) Stellarkid (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

suggested edit to AE edit notice

I think the edit notice should include instructions for both the enforcement request template and the enforcement appeal template. I did this here, but the actual edit notice is fully protected. nableezy - 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, what's the edit notice page again?  Sandstein  18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it...  Sandstein  18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, thanks for the proposal.  Sandstein  18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Arb appeal by Mbz1

It appears that User:Vexorg and User:Beyond My Ken are weighing in as "uninvolved" editors. There is no way that Vexorg can be considered uninvolved and Beyond My Ken has weighed in at the noticeboard for Vexorg making his position of support for Vexorg very clear. (Looks like Vexorg will be scrolling off the page and will get away scott-free this time as well, oh well) Stellarkid (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As the administrator whose action is under review in that appeal, it's not really my place to make a determination about who is involved and who isn't; that's up to the admin who'll close the appeal. But you may certainly make note of your concerns about these users' involvement in the AE thread.  Sandstein  21:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment solicited

Is this edit problematic? Unomi (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! It was up for less than a minute before he struck it! Give it a rest! Stellarkid (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Now it reads "totally and completely antisemitic ... completely legally daft and biased", which is not much better. I agree that a WP:BLP warning is warranted.  Sandstein  05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

oops. missed the daft part. Stellarkid (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Is the impending carnage avoidable?     ←   ZScarpia   18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy question

I guess you will delete my message, as you've done last two times, but I do not know who else I may ask, so here it is. May I please ask you, if it is a proper thing to do to try to convince the editors, who had something good to say about me at my appeal to change their comments as it was done in those edits; ;;;;? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather not comment on matters related to the management of your appeal against my sanction. Such questions should be directed to another administrator.  Sandstein  18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not appeal against your sanctions. I appeal to lift my sanctions. I was absolutely fine with your sanctions until my last block. That block hurt me a lot... My edit summary was silly, but it was just a joke... Anyway... I would not like you to find yourself in any trouble because of my appeal. If you'd like me to, I will withdraw it at once. As I said many times before I am not going to edit in the area of conflict no matter what, but now I am afraid to get trapped as I was two times already because of my "broadly constructed" topic ban. Still, if you'd like me to I will withdraw my appeal, and if I am trapped (blocked) again, that will be fine too. Misplaced Pages will be doing just fine without me I guess. So, it is up to you know. Withdraw?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, whether you want to withdraw your appeal is up to you. Whether you do so or not, as far as I am concerned, the ban remains necessary to protect Misplaced Pages from disruption and is maintained until such time as it expires or is lifted or modified by competent authority.  Sandstein  18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You weren't trapped, you decided to jump into a WP:ARBPIA AE appeal request regarding a user you had previously had conflicts with in I/P, in your ES you even whimsically wonder if doing this is in contravention of your topic ban.

To address your concern regarding my taking contact with the editors you mention above:

I asked if they understood that you were currently not restricted from any other aspect of wikipedia than what is Israel-Arab related, as their comments struck me as appearing to stem from a misunderstanding in that regard.

I further asked Lar+ if he would consider mentoring you as both he and cordelia seemed to be interested in finding alternate solutions, I was trying to help you.

When George seemed to question the grounds for the current topic ban I referred him to Sandstein and offered my understanding of it and I voiced my concern that you are likely to be met with even harsher sanctions if you are offered, and fail to abide by, alternate restrictions. I value your contributions to wikipedia, I think that it would be a shame to lose you as an asset to those areas where you are able to work constructively within policy. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what will happen if your current sanctions are lifted without strong guidance from a responsible mentor. Unomi (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I suggest that you stop trying to WP:BAIT Mbz1. This advice is for your own good; believe me on that one. Breein1007 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that this advice is intended in bad faith or to bait anybody. Nonetheless, if you two want to communicate with anybody who is not me, please do so in some other forum.  Sandstein  18:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ban

Why did you ban me without first telling me to remove this? I think this ban is really strange and I'm asking you to reconsider. I think there was a dispute whether it's WP:BLP. I didn't see it that way, and you could have explained to me as a moderator. I would gladly have removed it. I was never given a chance or a warning by a moderator. 3RR and the sockpupptery (which I deny! it was a mistake!) are long time ago. I'm not a very active user, I don't know if I would have made more edits or not, but I contributed to a lot of articles and I'm afraid people will delete my contributions. They have done so on a consistent basis from time to time. Please I'll gladly accept a restriction so that I won't engage in war editing which sometimes happens, but change the ban to something more reasonable... I don't really want my work to get ruined, and I also don't know what the ban includes - how wide is this scope? 99% of my edit history had to do with history and with Israel - what does it mean Arab Israeli conflict. I don't think it should have been done this way - it looks artbitrary and harsh. Thanks. Amoruso (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people told you to remove it, and you even reverted them to reinsert the violation. Administrators are not "moderators" and have no authority to order others around, though they do have authority to restrict disruptive users. As explained on BLPN, you blew the last chance you were given after the socking, which (given that the block was never lifted) I have no reason to assume that you did not do.  Sandstein  20:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that, but the determintion was "likely". I tried to appeal it but to no avail. I just hope you accept that likely is not "certain" and the checkuser guy realized that it may be wrong, they did it anyway. that was some time ago. the user that reverted me was someone who was rv'ing me on pages, and even wikistalking me. I just reported him, user:Unomi, so it was heated debate. If it was WP:BLP then I admit being wrong, and would have removed it. You just had to ask me - I've just been asked by a adminstrator that on my talk page, and then you weighed in - I think the first adminstrator asked me to notch it down and I would have - so he was already taking care of it! 20 minutes later you banned me without giving me a chance to comply with the first adminstrator who addressed me on that topic on my talk page. Can you please reconsider - this is really harsh and automatic... Amoruso (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, I strongly suggest you revoke your decision about Amoruso. I don't know Amoruso, but I do know Nableezy, and I do know that he brought en-wp to one of its lowest points ever. We are witnessing an ongoing political campaign led by Nableezy, Harlan Wilkerson, Tiamut and several other users. They have turned some of the articles in WP into a sad joke, and they constantly intimidate other users. Please, if you don't want to be part of this trend that the Misplaced Pages project further down to its end, don't cooperate with them. I have no intention to sound melodramatic, I am quite convinced things cannot go any worse, and (at least in this case) Amoruso is not the guy you were looking for. DrorK (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ynhockey: The sanction is puzzling to me as well, and appears ill-advised for the following reasons:

1. Amoruso is a prolific contributor to Israel-related topics, therefore the ban is extremely counter-productive
2. Amoruso has apologized and acknowledged the BLP violation
3. If you look at the article, in fact the editor who filed the complaint was the one who edit-warred and violated other policies, therefore by banning Amoruso who user the talk page to discuss the issues per policy and was not aware that he was violating BLP, you are in fact encouraging bad conduct from other editors, who now know they can get away with edit-warring, personal attacks, soapboxing, etc... just not BLP violations.
4. The other evidence brought up by you in the case (like sock puppetry, etc.) is irrelevant seeing as how the issue was dealt with and Amoruso stopped using sock puppets.

In other words, treating BLP as a sacred cow and banning anyone who remotely touches it, while letting other editors get away with just about anything with only "strong warnings" and the like (speaking of which, you might want to look at the Vexorg case because you gave him a strong warning and on the same day he started violating policies again), is not going to help improve Misplaced Pages, in my honest opinion. I request that you review and lift the ban, and give Amoruso a chance to make productive contributions to Misplaced Pages, something that he was not given with the swift and sweeping sanction which now effectively prevents him from editing. —Ynhockey 11:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia: I would agree that the ban would be excessive if it was just for a BLP violation, but the impression that I have is that it is for behavioural problems generally. Nobody would argue that "Amoruso is a prolific contributor" (albeit he has only just started to edit again after a longish break), but whether those contributions are neutral and well written would be a different matter. To me it is clear that he has great difficulty dealing with points of view other than his own and the editors expressing them.     ←   ZScarpia   12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I did create many articles and added a lot of well written material. I was also involved in very heated debates with several users in the past but I'm trying to get past that. user:nableezy has title=Talk:Israel&diff=354996488&oldid=354996124 accused me of lying without justification (later he sort of apologized when he acknowledged that he was wrong) which started this heated environment. Give me a chance by not making a topic ban over this mistake. Amoruso (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful if you or Ynhockey could provide us with a list of your contributions so we can assess the value, quality and neutrality for ourselves. Factomancer (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless Amoruso would like to list contributions that he's particularly proud of or asks editors to justify their criticisms of him, I think that it would be better not to start heading down the road of holding up specific ones for comment. A list of Amoruso's contributions can, of course be found here and statistics on contributions here.     ←   ZScarpia   15:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Amoruso is as prolific and valuable a contributor as Ynhockey claims then it shouldn't be hard to find examples of articles he has substantially improved. Wading through a raw contribution list is not practical and the stats don't really tell you anything useful except when identifying sockpuppets. Anyway the point is that its beholden upon the person making the claim to provide proof. Factomancer (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to revoke decision based on having a WP:RS for admittedly-misplaced WP:BLP issue

I sincerely apologize again for saying what I did. What I wrote was over the top, as I felt user:Nableezy and user:unomi were relentless with trying to taint Israeli articles with the term "occupied" - they were saying this is the universal truth by an "objective" ICJ, and this what brought the bad exaggeration. It is not my habit to exaggerate when dealing with someone termed as "X" by "source name". I feel a little that Nableezy was being protective of calling someone for that behavior, which is a bit of a serious issue on its own when Nableezy knows who that person is and that's he's under a lot of criticism for an alleged extreme anti Israeli decision and for being on the panel for alleged bias (all supported by WP:RS).

But I went to check my sources about the ICJ decision and I found the actual source. The source is referenced in scholarly works. It's referenced in Florida Law Review 57 Fla. L. Rev. 717, MENDING THE "FENCE": HOW TREATMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE HAGUE HAS REDEFINED THE DOCTRINE OF SELF- DEFENSE, page 13. The source is: "The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2004, at 20. The Jerusalem Post in an WP:RS. It talks about the case and says.. "'Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." No relevance. I see the words, but even knowing that the International Court of Justice would rule against Israel, I cannot fully believe they were written. With these words, the ICJ decision joins the parade of anti-Semitic infamy, along with such milestones as the Dreyfus trial...". This would all have been fleshed out if the discussion continued for more than the few hours it did. It would have been wrong and it won't continue now, but it's an RS for BLP purposes. I still won't reintroduce it, in fact I REMOVED every reference to the word, but having an WP:RS takes it out of WP:BLP sanction. I again apologize and will not edit that specific article again, and will edit more calmly without edit-warring, but I think this shows that it wasn't capricious and that it was based on WP:RS. This is not the only Israeli sources about the court's opinion to this regard, but it's an WP:RS that I was familiar with, and it stuck with me. It does not condone saying that, because I realize it's not helpful and I should have controlled that, but it's still an WP:RS so it shouldn't be dealt this way IMHO. Kind regards, Amoruso (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, that wasn't an article it was an op-ed by Saul Singer who went on to write in that very letter:

Which can no longer even be found on the jpost website. At best it is an RS for Saul Singers opinion. You were told by me, Nableezy and atleast 2 uninvolved editors that you were in the wrong, yet you kept arguing with them, claiming everything from free speech to how libel laws are interpreted rather than just backing up and reading the policies, which you refused to do. Unomi (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, why is it so important for you to ban me? Your edit history is quite strange. I wasn't told by uninvolved editors anything in the talk page itself. I accepted that I was wrong. How is this not an RS? Saul Singer is an editorial page editor at the Jerusalem post and co-author of Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, critically acclaimed book. He's an RS. And yes it's on the website. It is an RS that an accusation of antisemitism was brought by and so it doesn't fall into WP:BLP violation - I would have explained it all. I regret even going there but you can't say it's not an RS just to make sure that I'm banned. I think that you Unomi have a lot of explaining to do about your history of editing and that you shouldn't be involved. Amoruso (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything to make sure that you are banned, nor do I particularly care if you are, as long as you discuss in a reasoned manner. When I used the jpost search mechanism I could not find it, thank you for the link but I am unable to access it. Do you agree that it is an OpEd? He is absolutely not an RS for stating as fact that the ICJ is antisemitic, that is absurd. You made no effort to explain or substantiate any of it, you simply rewrote it so that it read as your opinion along with stating that since it was phrased in this way it wouldn't fall afoul of libel laws. You continue misread the letter and dishonor the spirit of WP:BLP even now. Do you fully realize that what you are accusing them of is illegal in many countries? Unomi (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, calm down. It's not illegal anywhere. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I know I made a mistake, but you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I never said "for stating as fact that the ICJ is antisemitic" - I would never say that. Obviously it's always a matter of opinion - it can never be a fact. I was saying or trying to say that there are opinions that it is, and these opinions are sourced. These opinions are published and are RS. & I accept that there was no place for it, but the RS mitigates the BLP indiscretion. Jerusalem Post in an WP:RS and the article is referenced in Florida Law Review. Now answer me Unomi, are you only one person using your account? Amoruso (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Amoruso I am the only one using this account. I need to get some work done, but here you proclaim that the decision by the ICJ was largely antisemitic. Unomi (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're now saying that a comment about an institution (supported by WP:RS) is WP:BLP. ... How can you edit for 24HRS straight? That's not the work of a single person. I think you should take time off and we shouldn't be discussing this on this talk page. Amoruso (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the only thing that you had close to a source for, unlike, I presume this. Yes, sometimes I edit for 48 hours straight, sometimes I don't sleep for 4 days at a time, thank you for your concern. I agree that this is misuse of Sandsteins talkpage. Unomi (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this illustrates the problem well. Source reliability works on a number of different levels. The Jerusalem Post itself, as a quality newspaper, has a general acceptance as a reliable source. Whether individual articles themselves are accepted as reliable sources (which is one of the issues decided by consensus) also depends on factors such as who the authors are. A Google search shows that Saul Singer is a writer and journalist with pretty hardline, non-neutrally expressed, views. That Amoruso expects other editors to accept him as a reliable source (meaning that his comments should be regarded as verification that statements are factual), particularly when he is writing in an article titled The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, speaks quite loudly. We are expected to give credit to the article because it is referred to by one in the Florida Law Review. That would be justifiable if the author was being used as a sound source of legal opinion. But he is not. (Apologies to Sandstein for cluttering his page up.)     ←   ZScarpia   16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Factson the ground and Mbz1

Hi there. I noticed to interaction-blocked FOTG for breaking the ban. Mbz1 has just messaged me asking if this constitutes a break. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave to catch a plane so I was wondering if you could take a look in the interim. Sorry! SGGH 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As I explained to Stellarkid that link has been on that page since long before the interaction ban was passed. I recently merely rearranged the page and added other links. If the link is considered a contravention of the interaction ban I will remove it immediately. Otherwise, I would prefer not to.

Also this is one more in a number of spurious interaction ban requests made against me. At what point does the "Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." clause come into effect?Factomancer (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that section so you all can stop the drama now. Factomancer (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)