User talk:Sandstein

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: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Reply

First and foremost I would like to reply to this:

"a separate request concerning Athenean should have been made if Athenean is believed to have acted disruptively" The seperate request was made 14 days ago here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean but it was completely ignored by the admins. I can make the request again. Are you willing to take a look at it?

Second I would like to appeal your decision on indefinite ban on the topics of Albania and Albanians and Greece and Greeks. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If your report was ignored then the reason may be because it was unfounded or (more likely) too long and not well argued enough to usefully review. Useful reports must contain a manageable number of dated and well-explained diffs. You may not make the report again because doing so would violate your topic ban. For appealing your ban, see the instructions at WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanctions 2.1) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

The instructions say that I may appeal the ban to the imposing administrator, and that's what I am doing. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then your appeal is declined because you have not provided a reason for why the ban should be lifted.  Sandstein  17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well here it goes. I honestly believed that my 1RR restriction imposed by Nishkid almost a year ago had expired, and did not know it was still in effect.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Knowing your restrictions is your own responsibility. This is not a convincing reason for lifting the ban.  Sandstein  18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Being that I was out on a ban for 6 months, and hadn't used wikipedia during that time (early June) and just forgot about this restriction. I think a little leniency on your part is warranted.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In view of your previous substantial disruption, and the evidence produced in the AE of outing and block evasion, it is not. You have had enough chances. Your appeal is declined. You may still appeal elsewhere as per the directions above.  Sandstein  19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as disruption goes, you should take a look at the report I made on Athenean. If I am disruptive than Athenean is the epiphany of disruption. As soon as I came back from my ban he and his friend Alexikoua have shadowed me continually in every revert I make, and have reported me on assumption of bad faith 3 times, including this time. In fact all the bans or restrictions I have received have come from reports from this editor and his sergeant at arms Alexikoua. --I Pakapshem (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Subsection about the complaint)

How can you say it's not well argued enough when you haven't even looked at it? It is very useful, very well argued, dated and numbered. The amount of information included is vast in order to bolster the argument that this user should be permanently banned from balkan articles. --I Pakapshem (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to argue about your grievances concerning disputes, editors or articles related to Albania, you will violate your topic ban and be blocked.  Sandstein  16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am having a conversation with you, and I am not violating my topic ban since your talk page is not related to Albanian and Albanians and Greece and Greeks. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Breach of your sanctions?

Is this [1] a breach of your recent sanctions on the two editors involved? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think it's superseded by the report below.  Sandstein  15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

This diff [2] is a clear violation of the DIGWUREN restriction [3]. If changing my "Polish" into "Belorussian" is not a vilation of the "stay out of each other's way" then I don't know what is.  Dr. Loosmark  15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked Loosmark in turn, because his addition of "Polish" to the lead appeared to be a direct reaction to Varsovian removing Category:Polish Bishops. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection.  Sandstein  17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and question

Thank you for unblocking me. I am starting to think about changing nicks, so that my biography in Wikipedia does not appear as black as it may appear judging exclusively from my block history. Would my blocks still appear if I change nickname? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your block log carries over after a change of username.  Sandstein  15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement clarification request

Just a short question so that I am clear about the precise restrictions I am under: while blocked yesterday I posted on my talk page a request for enforcement regarding a breach of editing restrictions. I note, however, that the terms of the restriction "Should either party believe that the other violates this ban, they may not react to this except by means of the following procedure: they may inform one uninvolved administrator, on their talk page, of the diff of the edit in question as well as of this topic ban, and ask the admin to determine whether that edit constitutes a sanctionable violation;" Should I have waited until I was unblocked to ask for enforcement? Also, am I correct in assuming that ""interaction" is to be determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment, but shall include (without being limited to) making reference to the other on any page," would include unblock requests? I took great care to only address my own behaviour in my unblock request, was that the correct thing to do? Varsovian (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In each case, the answer is yes.  Sandstein  18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll make sure to remember that in the future (although it is somewhat moot given that I have no intention to be blocked for violating the interaction ban, despite the best efforts of Chumchum7 above where he claims that my editing a completely different section of the article was a violation!) One other question: would it have been acceptable for me to email the edits which I requested enforcement for to an admin? Varsovian (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Many admins, including myself, prefer to act only on onwiki correspondence, for transparency's sake. Others might accept such an e-mail request.  Sandstein  21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

interaction ban violation

In regard to this restriction you placed on User:Dr. Dan [4] where Dan "is also banned from commenting on or otherwise directly interacting with Piotrus", please take a look at this edit, specifically the sentence "Which is why I get a laugh out of people who ... Fetish model|model different Żupan|garbs on their user pages." ("fetish model" and "Żupan" are wiki-linked).

This is a clear comment on Piotrus, and a reference to this picture which Piotrus has on his user page, in which he is wearing a Żupan. Comparing a user's inclusion of a photo of himself on their own user page to fetish modeling is in itself rude, never mind that it violates the interaction/commenting ban.

What makes this worse is that there's a bit of a backstory here, which very clearly shows that this was intended as an insult to Piotrus and that it is indeed an intentional reference to him. Basically, for a long time Dan would link to the picture in all kinds of discussions, for no discernible reason at all (the discussions were in no way related to the clothing), except possibly to deliberately annoy Piotrus.

A search for the image on Wikipedia brings up some of the places which show this: [5] and some specific instances are here (archive, click "P.P" link), here, here, here, here (archive, click "P.P" link), here (archive, click "P.P" link), here (archive, click "P.P" link) and here (archive, click "P.P" link). I'm sure there is more. All of these diffs show that Dan's statement about people fetish modeling Żupans on Wikipedia was not in a reference to some random person but intended for Piotrus specifically (note also that Dan made the comment shortly after Piotrus commented on Loosmark's page right below this thread). And it was intended to continue a pattern of insulting Piotrus.

Indeed, User:Irpen, who was most definitely not on friendly terms with Piotrus (but who nonetheless managed to observe a certain level of civility) noted that Dan's actions were provocative and removed Dan's links [6], and noted that this was an attempt to ridicule Piotrus [7].

Piotrus had also asked Dan to desist in this action [8] (and as can be seen from the discussion Irpen supported Piotrus here, which I think was like the only time that the two of them agreed on anything). So this makes this not only incivil, a violation of an interaction restriction, but also resumption of activity which Dan promised to cease.

I also want to note that while taken in isolation this kind of thing may seem minor, this pattern of low-intensity but constant harassment by Dan has already driven off valuable editors away from Wikipedia: [9], [10]. The fact that these comments of Dan's are made in a way specifically designed to WP:GAME the restriction acerbate rather than alleviate the nature of the infraction.

If this needs to be made into a AE report please let me know. The need for the backstory and the fact that the relevant sanctions are discretionary is why I'm asking about this on your talk page.radek (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bickering collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My remarks made here [11] were made in jest and have nothing to do with this party [12] any more than linking the aforementioned person to the House of Scrotum. Radeksz, please do not come to my user page [13] with this kind of drivel. I realize you are looking for any kind of straw to grasp for a multitude of reasons, not least of all being what happened to you as a result of the EEML debacle. I repeat, no reference to that party was intended. Furthermore I experienced this kind of mentality during my time in the Eastern Block. Ironically, one of my Polish patients at the hospital recently told me that he received a five year jail sentence in Poland in the early 1950's, while serving in the army, for making a joke that the authorities found to be unacceptable. Five years! Radeksz please don't try to extrapolate something out of an exchange at someone else's talk page that doesn't concern you. Again, the reference was not about the party in question. And Radeksz I'm impressed with all of the links and backround that you've dug up to make a case going all the way back to God knows when. Senator McCarthy and Iona Nikitchenko would be proud of the effort. It will be nice when you have more time to improve the project rather than following my edits at other people's talk pages. Sorry to have to respond here at this talk page, but I'd like to nip this in the bud. On the one hand it's humorous and somewhat ridiculous, but on the other it is taking on sinister and ugly overtones. I have engaged in humorous banter with Loosmark for a considerable time. If he has a problem with my edits at his talk page I'm sure we are capable of resolving them without you (Radeksz) starting a new witchhunt. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC) "the reference was not about the party in question" - the reference was in fact very much about the party in question as the diffs I provided show. Can you find a picture of any other Wikipedia editor who "fetish models" "Zupans" on their userpage? Or anywhere else on Wikipedia?radek (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC) My remarks made here [14] were made in jest and have nothing to do with this party [15]. Period. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sure they were made "in jest", as in "making fun" or insulting other people. But these "other people" happen to be ones you are banned from commenting on. And again, the diffs and the history provided above illustrate very clearly that they had everything to do with Piotrus. Again, if not him, who exactly were you commenting on? You can pick a general group rather than a specific user if that helps your case. Not many people or groups "model" pictures of themselves wearing Zupans on Wikipedia.radek (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC) "My case?" I didn't know I was on trial. You ask "Can you find a picture of any other Wikipedia editor who fetish models Zupans on their userpage?" To me that suggests that you believe the party in question fetish models Zupans on their userpage. I don't happen to believe that to be the case. Furthermore at the "diff" I specifically stated "Which is why I get a laugh out of people who believe that they're descended from the House of Scrotum, even though they're not, or model different garbs on their user pages. Why would I get a laugh out of this this picture. Do you see anything funny about it? Funny how? Do you really think that it represents fetish modeling? I do not. In that picture the party is simply celebrating the holidays wearing the costume that I assume his aristocratic ancestors wore during festive occasions. If you read the article on Lady Catherine you'll notice that she too modeled dirndls in the 1930's, it might be a prerogative of persons of a high station to dress up like that. So no, you're mistaken. But thank you for bringing forth the picture. One doesn't get to see the garb too frequently outside of a museum these days. Let me say this again, I wasn't referring to that picture. Got it? Let me say this too. The first part of my comment to my friend, Loosmark, was ..."I get a laugh out of people who believe that they're descended from the House of Scrotum, even though they're not...", surely you're not also ridiculously claiming that I was somehow violating a sanction by that remark as well? That I was referring to someone in particular. I suppose if I had used kontusz or Grecian bend instead of zupan for my link to "garb", all of this could have been avoided. And thanks for notifying me at my talk page. Usually these matters are coordinated "soto voce", through off-line emails, and the like. And I thought I'd only have to deal with your antics after your ban expired instead of during it. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz, the reference may well have been intentional, but it's too indirect to be sanctionable in my opinion. You are of course free to see if other admins at WP:AE think otherwise. Dr. Dan, your outrage rings hollow; please don't do anything that causes this ridiculous spat to continue. If either of you wishes to discuss this further, which I strongly advise against, please do not do it on my talk page.  Sandstein  06:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)