Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Varsovian (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 21 June 2010 (→Breein1007 AE). 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.

Brandmeister

He created another account and edited the talkpage of the article at cause in the report. I don't think it is necessary to reopen, since you are the closing admin, you could at your discretion update the report and endorse a restriction. Ionidasz (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Physchim62

Why did you go for a one month topic ban when two other admins had settled on one week as the appropriate sanction? Spartaz 10:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Because, as I explained there, Physchim62's continued combative statements after the two other admins' comments, about him being on "show trial" for criticising Israel, led me to believe me that he profoundly misunderstands the nature and purpose of Misplaced Pages, and that a longer ban is needed.  Sandstein  10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you went out on your own there, the other two admins saw the same diffs and the effect is that you imposed a ban against the emerging consensus and that's not what AE is supposed to be about. Please abate the ban to 1 week and then seek consensus for an extension if you think this is too short. But its wrong to go your own way against consensus. Spartaz 10:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not required for discretionary sanctions, hence the name. At any rate, two people do not make a consensus, and the only disagreement seems to be about the length of the ban. I'll not modify my sanction.  Sandstein  10:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Disappointingly inflexible if I may say so and rather disdainful of the views of fellow admins. Spartaz 10:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you take interest in these matters, might I suggest that your time might be better spent by reviewing and closing a few enforcement requests yourself, instead of criticizing those who do?  Sandstein  11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What would be the point of my spending time reviewing evidence and contributing opinions if you are just going to ignore then and do what you feel like anyway? Spartaz 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if you review a case and either close it without action or impose whatever sanction you deem appropriate, I won't second-guess you. That's rather the point of discretionary sanctions, which are intended to be fast and effective: it's up to the individual admin reviewing a request to decide what to do, much like WP:AIV, and not up to the community by way of a discussion.  Sandstein  11:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP

You may be unfamiliar with this, but an arbitrator has taken the position that where editors sought to introduce into an article a direct quote from a Washington Post article that said, in effect, "unnamed government officials say X", that is a clear BLP violation. The reason, she asserted, is that it did not name who the government officials were. That, I expect, is at odds with your view of BLP requirements (it was at odds with mine, but I defer to the arb). Obviously, the statement at the Der Spiegel article was far less revealing as to the source of its statement. We need consistency on wp. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a diff for this?  Sandstein  12:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Number 23

Pleasing picture and not an axe in sight. - I too spent yesterday afternoon photographing an old building for Misplaced Pages - nice to know that we have at least one thing in common.  Giacomo  07:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Axe? At any rate, thanks for contributing your architectural know-how to the article, which I think is well written even though what's available online are less than optimal sources.  Sandstein  12:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 AE

The enforcement request re Breein1007 has now been archived without an actual result (here) -- perhaps that's not an outcome you will consider undesirable, but I'd like to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no particular desire either way. If an AE request is archived without action, it's pretty much unactionable by default.  Sandstein  12:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you extend the same thought about an AE request which is archived without action to the AE request which Loosmark recently filed with regard to me? I asked another admin here whether the best resolution to that request was that Loosmark and I be both completely banned from interacting with each other, or even mentioning each other. I'd welcome your thoughts either here or there as to whether such action would be the best solution to a matter which Loosmark has recently raised again (). Varsovian (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

An admin has now said that "An interaction ban between Dr. Loosmark and Varsovian seems to have some merit." and suggested two months as the duration (). I replied that the ban should be longer and tighter (). Loosmark's response starts "An interaction ban between Dr.Loosmakr and Varsovian!? You have to be kidding." () I really would welcome any comments which you can find time to make with regard to this matter. Thank you in advance for any help you may offer. Varsovian (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The AE request was about Varsovian breaking his AE sanctions. Namely he told Kotniski that he made accusations racism and that was after he was explained a couple of days earlier on this very talk page that nobody was making accusation of racism and was advised to stop doing it. In my opinion he misused my AE request to start a series of accusations against myself which have nothing to with the request. (Among other things he said that I should be happy "that he did not report me for deliberately mistranslating a source".) Varsovian is of course free to fill an AE report against me if he wants an interaction ban (i will oppose it), but in my opinion it would be a mistake to close a report on his violation of the AE sanctions with a interaction ban between me and him. It will just give him the green light to go on claiming that people make accusations of racism when they did not make such accusations plus it will get rid of the person who dared to report him for such a violation.  Dr. Loosmark  14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you here , you are incorrect when you say "Varsovian breaking his AE sanctions". You have given diffs regarding a single sanction. Kindly refrain from making the accusation regarding plural sanctions. I suggest that your apparently inability either to correctly use plural forms about me or to tell the truth (one or the other is clearly the cause) simply tells me that the best thing for WP is if we are both immediately and very firmly banned from interacting with each other. Varsovian (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I am able to use the plural quite correctly and I suggest you read my report again. I claimed you broke both your specific AE sanction and the general Digwuren sanctions. I have even put both links in the report. And small wonder you are now lobbying for closing the AE report with a "firm interaction ban" both on the Strifle's and Sandstein's talk. It gives you a dream scenario without addressing your misconduct in the slightest to boot.  Dr. Loosmark  14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, now it is "I claimed you broke both your specific AE sanction" while in the past it was "The AE request was about Varsovian breaking his AE sanctions." but you are "able to use the plural quite correctly". I won't provide diffs to the above quotes (which are both on this page) as I'm not accusing you of any misconduct (particularly, to avoid any doubt, not accusing you of lying about whether I broke sanctions or one sanction). Varsovian (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you just wrote it's either "my inability either to correctly use plural forms about you or to tell the truth (one or the other is clearly the cause)". Either of that is uncivil and you seem to repeatedly be under the illusion that if you attach the "I am not accusing you of..." disclaimer, you can write whatever you wish then. Not so. But anyway since now according to you, you are "not accusing me of any misconduct" may I ask why again are you going on about it then? This is not a forum for chitchatting.  Dr. Loosmark  17:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly made good-faith mistakes when using the plural form (examples are above and they're good faith mistakes not misconduct, so there's no need for me to provide diffs). This suggests that you may be reading not what my words say but what you think they should say. Giving that you always seem to take the understanding which is worst for me, it may well be that you're having problems with me. Therefore, so that you don't post with reference to those problems (and drop the WP:STICK) it would be best if we were banned as I've suggested. Varsovian (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your latest post is once again a violation of your restriction: . Quote Also, whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue.. The above: "This suggests that you may be reading not what my words say but what you think they should say. Giving that you always seem to take the understanding which is worst for me, it may well be that you're having problems with me." is clear accusation of bad faith. You seems to think that you have found a very clever loophole by constantly using the "not misconduct" disclaimer however you are mistaken because if that would be allowed to pass then everybody could avoid any restriction that way.  Dr. Loosmark  18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:HORSE]. Yet again I specifically say "not misconduct" and you then claim I'm alleging misconduct. It really is getting very hard to assume good faith on the part of you. Varsovian (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)