Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 09:41, 1 June 2015 (→Unclear about a topic ban: r). 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.

Maxim Stoyalov

No big deal since a new AfD is active but there was a previous AfD which would have been obvious if you looked at the talk page. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Max Stoyalov was a bit short but did exist.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it did not reach a consensus result because an admin speedy deleted the article before any opinions could be offered. So for the purposes of WP:CSD#G4 there was no prior AfD.  Sandstein  22:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough - I see the point. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Peter Licavoli" article

Greetings. I'm writing to you in your capacity as an administrator. If you read the stub Peter Licavoli you'll see that he was a US Made man. A few days ago, I removed a sentence or two which praised his work after he ostensibly left the Mafia, describing it as "peacock language." The article had not been edited in 8 months. My edit was quickly reverted. I removed the reversion. Then the same editor re-reverted, ordering me not to removed his edit and calling me a "prick." This set off alarm bells in my mind--his 'assumption of command' and vulgarity are characteristic Mafia-like behavior, and his attachment to the memory of Mr. Licavoli was plainly personal. I created a talk page for the editor's IP address, and asked him to assure me that he wasn't making a threat. This is the page:https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:67.1.202.115 You can see what follows at that page and the history page of Peter Licavoli. Similar edits have been made to the Licavoli article from 2 additional IP addresses--it's clearly the same editor at 'work,' using multiple addresses for edit-warring.

It may be somewhat overdramatic, but I feel slightly threatened because of this editors 'stance' towards me. Imagine how you'd feel (and think) if dealing with an enthusiastic partisan of a high-ranking Waffen SS Offizier. I didn't post this to WP:AN3 on account of this complication. Can you please help me with this, or suggest a way to proceed? Thank you for your attention. Tapered (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: Could you please auto-protect Peter Licavoli so that only registered editors can edit it. Thanks. Tapered (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and semi-protected the article.  Sandstein  11:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Tapered (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell us why you won't allow a non-vulgar, non-theatening edit to be posted? Do you have a personel vendetta for this person or are you just using your power of edit? Other than that you are blocking free speech just like communist counties. Please explain to us??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.233.237 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm only going to say this once. You have no right to free speech on Misplaced Pages, see WP:FREESPEECH. This is a privately operated website and you are only allowed to edit it if you follow its rules. And that, you have comprehensively failed to do: you have engaged in edit wars, see WP:EW, you have personally attacked other editors, see WP:NPA, you have used Misplaced Pages articles to clumsily promote an issue and engage in editorializing, all without citing sources, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. And you are evading a block placed on your IP address, in violation of WP:EVADE. For this, your editing privileges have been removed. If you would like to have a chance at editing Misplaced Pages again, stop evading your block, read WP:GAB and proceed as directed there.  Sandstein  15:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate messages

Sandstein, please stop disrupting my talk page with inappropriate templates. You are accusing of edit warring and laughably threatening Arbitration when what editors have done (and you've only targeted me) is remove an addition of info that YOU agree with but is clearly under discussion and opposed by a majority of editors at the BLP noticeboard. Gaijin42 has removed it, as did Dwpaul - and they have supported the addition. But you have not bothered them. If you keep disrupting my page with this, you'd be harassing. Your competence as an admin has already been questioned by another editor (Govindaharihari), plus the fact that most disagree with your view at the noticeboard; I ask and suggest you stop disrupting my page with nonsense threats. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not threatening you with anything. If you read WP:AC/DS, you will see that these alerts are intended to notify (without presumption of misconduct) users who are editing in certain topic areas, including WP:BLP articles, that special rules apply to these areas. This also covers edit-warring with respect to disputed content, such as the content about whose inclusion in Cate Blanchett we disagree. I'm looking forward to the conclusion of the discussion about this at WP:BLPN, but in the meantime I advise you to refrain from edit-warring. Regards,  Sandstein  11:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Given the templates and circumstances, one can interpret it as threats, and if done again, mere harassment. I've not edit warred; I, like other editors, only removed the controversial info on the BLP because it's under discussion (and also being largely opposed) at the BLP noticeboard. It's expected that other editors (mostly IPs) unaware of the discussions would be adding the info. The controversial info can't stay on the BLP while it's being considered ambiguous and against BLP policy or Undue. Whatever the consensus is at the noticeboard, that's what we would should abide by here. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should abide by whatever consensus forms at the noticeboard, but that does not change that if you repeatedly remove (or others repeatedly add) the content at issue, this may constitute participation in an edit war, which may lead to sanctions as described in my messages.  Sandstein  11:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If others keep adding it would you suggest temporary page protection, or pending changes? Lapadite (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My view is that the fact that people keep adding the content is an indicator that our readership is interested in this topic, which informs the discussion about it, and therefore I would oppose any protection measure. Ultimately, we must abide by consensus, and if this is added by different people repeatedly, it should become apparent that consensus is in favor of its inclusion.  Sandstein  12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that the whole "Cate Blanchett is a lesbian" thing has been shown to be a creation of journalistic sensationalism, I think you have some apologies to offer. As an administrator, isn't it more important for you to defend our cautious and conservative BLP policy than to argue that "our readship is interested" in splashy rumor mongering? Cullen Let's discuss it 18:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. The statement was attributed to Blanchett in a (normally) reliable source, and I think the responsible thing to do, based on that information, was to reproduce this statement and attribute it to the source so that readers can decide for themselves what to make of it. That still is the responsible thing to do now, in my view, but now of course together with Blanchett's correction. As important as it is to write biographies conservatively, we are not in the business of second-guessing reliable sources because that would be original research. Let the actually involved people do that, and let's cover any new developments as they happen.  Sandstein  18:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Unclear about a topic ban

Hi, I am confused about my topic ban on Bulgaria. I abstaimed from editing for abot two years, not because I was blocked for so much time I was just for three months, so I am began again before two days and I wonder which bans are cutrently still in force. Is the topic ban expired or still in force, enforced before two years? It is written "idefinetely" banned but at the same time I am able to edit topic pages on topic, it doesnt show me "view aource", does this mean that the block had expired? If no, I would like to appeal, I am interested in this topic. It's been two years already I promise I wont break 3rr, I deserve a second chance if not u can reblock me at any time. Thank you for the atention.--Ceco31 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to the decision imposing the ban?  Sandstein  19:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ceco31#At_AE_again --Ceco31 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse ne for the wrong link this is the decision imposing the ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=556281728#Ceco31

The topic ban remains in effect indefinitely, it applies separately from the block. Your appeal, insofar as this is one, is declined: Your contributions indicate almost no substantial contributions since the topic ban in May 2013, so I can't tell whether and how you have changed your approach to editing. Your most recent contributions, though, indicate that you have not: As soon as you returned to Misplaced Pages, you started edit-warring on Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and Bartholomew I of Constantinople. You also violated your topic ban by editing Bulgarians, including with an edit that can be read as racist. For this, you are blocked for three more months.  Sandstein  09:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Steven Universe: Attack the Light!

On 31 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Steven Universe: Attack the Light!, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Steven Universe–Uncle Grandpa crossover was promoted with the release of a mobile game for the former show? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)