User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/August

DYK for Contempt of cop

On August 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Contempt of cop, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Hi, Sandstein.

The above AfD was disrupted by canvassing. I have closed it accordingly. Please do feel free to start a new AfD in the near future.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Disrupted AfD for Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, fyi.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks!  Sandstein  20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (5). Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your sanction against me

I am not surprised that you imposed this sanction. I'll keep it in mind. Please be sure to log the 12 hour block and sanction on the case page, okay? I won't be appealing it, and will leave any appeal to another user. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The block should be logged by the administrator imposing it.  Sandstein  21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should still log your restriction against me on the case page. I'll contact Viridae and ask him/her to log the block at the case page. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you change it? Is it due to the fact that you are unsure of whether you have the authority to extend to after the probation? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because I am sure that I do not.  Sandstein  21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess it was merely a wording change. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hi. As you probably know, the sockpuppet investigation of St. Hubert (talk · contribs), with whom I had a primary conflict, was finally dismissed on good faith grounds as he promised to voluntarily leave Wikipedia. As long as my request to the Ban Subcommittee was not ultimately considered, could you review somehow my topic ban as a sanctioning admin in terms of the Amended Remedies and Enforcement, which state in particular that in determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should... balance the need to assume good faith... and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit? Regards. Brand[t] 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What has happened since June 2009 that you believe makes a review of the sanction appropriate?  Sandstein  21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanstein, I believe that the ban's timespan is inappropriately long for such issue. Also, the topic ban includes Turkey despite that I had not edited the related pages as evidenced in contribs. Meowy, I see no irony as we don't need new edit warriors and obscure accounts. Brand[t] 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If nothing new has happened that requires a reevaluation of the sanction, I refer you to my statements at User talk:Brandmeister#1RR review. I believe the timespan is adequate and in keeping with similar sanctions against others. The sanction includes Turkey because Turkey is in the area of conflict of the arbitration case. I do not believe that a sanction prohibiting you from excessive reverts in an area that you yourself say you do not even edit is particularly onerous. For these reasons, I decline to modify the sanction at this time.  Sandstein  04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some irony that an editor given a 6-month topic ban under AA2 has been going around other editors talk pages warning them about (i.e threatening them with) AA2. Here for example, [1], and here [2]. Meowy 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see any irony in it (I guess I was being ironical when I used the "i" word). You are placing those warnings into editors pages so that you (or future co-conspirators) can later make complaints against those editors using AA2 and state in the complaints that those editors were already informed of the restrictions and so already fall under their restrictions. Meowy 00:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, I do not see the relevance of that issue to this thread. Brandmeister may indeed notify other users of the AA2 case. "Co-conspirators" is a personal attack. If you use such words again, I will block you.  Sandstein  04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not have expected less from you. But at least you have admitted that the practice by some editors of placing warnings on other editors pages so that they can, at a later date, make complaints against those editors using AA2 and state in their complaints that those editors were already informed of the restrictions and so already fall under their restrictions is an issue. Meowy 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking the risk of jumping in where it may not concern me. I think Arbcom's notification requirement is intended to offer the editor a chance to back away from deep waters where he may not have had any idea of the previous difficulties. It's not unlike the {{uw-3rr}} warning. In the 3RR case, the editor may either:

1. Be new, and not have heard of the 3RR rule
2. Been reverting cheerfully away without knowing he was near the edge

The good side of the notification rule is that the editor may wake up due to the warning and avoid stepping into a block. (It also grants him forgiveness for any borderline conduct that preceded the warning). In the case of {{uw-3rr}}, ANYONE may issue the warning (even an editorial opponent) and it's not considered a problem. It seems to me that notifications under Arbcom cases would work the same. I suppose that policy could be changed so that only admins could issue the notifications, but that would be a new ball game. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AA2 is so vague and so badly drafted, and has had so many versions and rewrites, and is so intellectually and morally hollow, that you can read into it whatever you wish - so not unsurprisingly some editors and a small mumber of administrators have been able to twist and stretch it to fit whatever task they want it to perform. Using AA2 it would be quite feasable for an editor to be given a lifetime ban for making 3 reverts on an article about a Greek football team, if an administrator had a mind to do it. It's not surprising then that certain administrators love AA2. Meowy 14:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification request (Ryulong revert restriction)

Two days ago, you imposed a discretionary sanction forbidding me from reverting edits by Ryulong. I know that this applies to articles, talk pages, etc, but does it apply to userspace? Does it apply to my user talk page? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but archiving of talk page comments by moving them to an archive page are not to be considered reverts for the purpose of the sanction.  Sandstein  04:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would it? Also, please note that I am referring to my userspace. I forgot "my" when I said "userspace". Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the restriction does not exclude userspace.  Sandstein  04:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So if he makes an edit to my talk page, and if I revert the edit, I will be blocked? I thought that all editors were free to revert edits on their own user talk page, as long as the revert follows policy. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you may be blocked. All editors are indeed free to revert edits on their own user talk page – except you, because of your restriction.  Sandstein  04:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should it apply to my user talk page? Even if I were under an interaction ban, wouldn't I certainly be free to revert his edits? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you are not under an interaction ban, but under a revert ban. An interaction ban will certainly come next if you keep this up. I advise you to forget about Ryulong entirely and do something else. This is all I am going to say about this clarification request.  Sandstein  05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Though, I might bring this up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, to request that an exception be my user talk page. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I bring it up there, or discuss the request for such an exception here? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am really not sure how strongly I could possibly urge you to not file a request on this. It is such a bad idea. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to the unfavored recent request for clarification? Also, do you think such an exception would be appropriate? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "unfavored" is a generous word; I would predict there is at least an 80% chance that the next request you file to arbcom will result in a namespace/topic/site ban. Further, I do not think the exception you are seeking is appropriate and while I am recused from action in this matter, concur with Sandstein's sanction. MBisanz ^talk 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would it result in a "site ban"? Why don't you think the exception I am "seeking" is appropriate? I'd like to know. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally when arbcom reviews a user's conduct, they seek to find a sanction that balances the goals of stopping the disruption to the site while still permitting the person to edit. Given your inability to stop following Ryulong around and stop wikilawyering issues before arbcom, I suspect they may find a site ban the only way to terminate those behaviors. Arbcom also generally weighs a person's contributions to the encyclopedia in comparison to the level of attention they require to be able to edit. Right now, it appears you require a great deal of attention from a large number of editors to make any level of contributions to the encyclopedia. Several users have pleaded with you to focus simply on content and ignore other matters, but you have not heeded their words. Also, I do not think the exception is appropriate, because you have shown yourself unable to heed the letter and spirit of the other restrictions placed on you and also because I do not foresee there to be a circumstance where Ryulong would make an edit to your userpage that would require you to revert it. I again strongly urge you to find a mentor and work with that mentor on editing content. MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur entirely.  Sandstein  07:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving Lists of atheists to List of nontheists

Hello, Sandstein. There has been discussion of making the above move, for reasons best articulated by Silence here. As you were the closing admin for the previous List of nontheists AfD some time ago, I wanted to make sure we were making the move with proper respect to the concerns raised during that discussion, as well as your determination of the consensus there. I do not think the move would be a problem, as it is not a recreation of the deleted version, and the article would essentially remain the same as the present Lists of atheists, except using more inclusive terminology. There is a draft here of how the list might appear if the move is made. Please let us know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I'm not seeing a problem with this move (if it has consensus, I personally have no opinion about it) from an AfD point of view. The AfD was mainly concerned with redundancy to "Lists of atheists", and a move does not present that problem. Of course, as you may be aware, such a move raises unrelated sourcing/OR issues to the extent that it has to be established that all these "atheists" are indeed "nontheists", but that is a matter for editorial discussion.  Sandstein  04:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Platano Vulva

Look. The picture is just one of two bananas and a napkin. It clearly suggests the shape of a vulva but not for this has an obscene meaning or intension. I am not a photographer but those friends that are liked it and find it interesting. I thought that people would like it also here. There is a difference between some "immature entertainment" and a simple suggestive depiction of fruits that combines the elements of food presentation (photography in this case) and erotic or sensual art in a way that is teasing and attractive, in view and meaning. This is achieved by the superposition of the planes in which the content of the photography is at the same time tasty (as food) and attractive as a feminine shape. For centuries many fruits have been used as allegories of sexual elements and suggestive compositions have been used by both chefs and photographers to enhance its view and make them more attractive. I have been keeping re-posting it because always the comments have been of this kind "stupid", "useless", "immature" which are in themselves either immature or which come with the predisposition that I'm posting it to annoy or something and don't really giving serious reasons for its deletion. I really don't loose anything if it gets deleted. I and my friends can still enjoy it. I just wanted to give you a chance to think again if the picture really, by itself, is inappropriate. If people really think so go ahead and delete it. I won't post it anymore. Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report: [3] Thanks. Grandmaster 06:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the report. Now we have 76.237.11.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) canvassing to recruit users for an edit war on the same article. Grandmaster 16:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to file a WP:SPI report to allow checkusers to look for any additional socks or IPs.  Sandstein  22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I already filed one SPI request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apserus/Archive. If there's more suspicious activity, I will file another request. Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 07:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on Wikicommons

Dear Sandstein,

I hope you have some time to check the message I sent you several days ago on your Wikicommons account on 3 recently discovered uploads by you. One image in the 'images not found' category looks important. The time is approaching where this entire category will have to be closed and the images here probably deleted sadly. Admin captain tucker on Commons has contacted all the flickrowners whose photos lie here and no one bothered to respond for this image which you uploaded. I hope you can pass them all. While I am a trusted user on Commons now, it would look better if you passed them since you are still active on Commons. Thank You for your time, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the notification.  Sandstein  06:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for marking them. It is sad that so many people license images freely and later change the license or delete them when they see them naturally used on web sites. It sounds so 'illogical'...as Mr. Spock would say of us humans. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

As long as my topic restriction mentions "from all pages", just wonder whether it is possible to create new ones or stubs. I've also checked WP:RESTRICT and from what I understood it assumes the already existing pages. Brand[t] 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit creating a page is also an edit to that page, so you are also restricted from creating pages that you are restricted from editing.  Sandstein  15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of Falun Gong arbitration case

Hi, I've already amended the request following your comment. Kindly confirm whether this is what you were looking for, or if something is still amiss.

Regards, Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. I saw your recent comment over at WP:AE, indicating that Arbcom itself might be the only group authorized to do any article review that is needed. Surely this is reading the FG decision too narrowly? They announced an article probation, which normally provides that Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Your comment makes sense only if you think that Arbcom intended to impose a weaker-than-usual form of article probation. Also, Olaf Stephanos was sanctioned recently at AE, and the grounds for his action seem like they would also apply to Dilip rajeev. I say this without having reviewed the rajeev evidence, just being concerned that you could be underestimating the discretion that Arbcom intended to give to uninvolved admins on this matter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll reply on WP:AE.  Sandstein  16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern

Sandstein, I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia and sincerely apologize for my canvassing in response to your proposal to delete the article for Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern. I had only meant to contact stakeholders who had previously contributed to Hohenzollern-related articles. Instead of making those messages neutral, I knowingly crossed the line and suggested to the users how they should vote. After the dust settles, I hope another discussion will reach a final consensus. Thanks again for your dedication. --Caponer (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and of course I take no offense.  Sandstein  05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Blue cake

On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blue cake, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)