User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:27, 28 April 2010 editBreein1007 (talk \| contribs)2,512 edits lol wrong year← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:53, 28 April 2010 edit undoMatthead (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers21,271 edits →Again and Again: new sectionNext edit →
Line 46:		Line 46:
	:::The offensive comment is now struck through. If you'd like to do something constructive, I have posted a list of proposed changes to the London Victory parade article at that article's talkpage. Why not have a look and work with me on improving the article? ] (]) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)		:::The offensive comment is now struck through. If you'd like to do something constructive, I have posted a list of proposed changes to the London Victory parade article at that article's talkpage. Why not have a look and work with me on improving the article? ] (]) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}

			== Again and Again ==

			Sandstein, I am wondering whether users are permitted to escape sanctioning by hit-and-run tactics, that is striking some articles, and then retreating in time, before admins can (or are willing to) act effetively? After a hiatus of weeks or months, ''rinse and repeat'', ''deja vu all over again'', etc.

			You seem to be very patient with ], who has a habit, apart from his back and forth ''semi retiring'', to ask you here to intervene against his foes. On the other hand, only six weeks ago, you readily blocked me, for what you called "nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct and harrassment". I'm wondering how you would describe the recent behavior of Loosmark? You once again complied with his demands and Digwuren-restricted his opponent ], so one might say that harrassment was successful here. Please look at ], where Loosmark, against overwhelming consensus of many neutral editors, does not hesitate to once again defend the vanity article on EEML member Poeticbent. Can this be explained other than with nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct on behalf of a fellow Pole?

			Following Loosmark's examples, may I ask you about ], who showed up again recently, and got , but not ]?

			Another example is ], a very seasoned user and sock puppeteer (self admitted to ]) who was placed under Digwuren editing restriction in 2008, occasionally returns to conduct edit wars, mainly on German/Polish place naming. In the summary to his recent four reverts in prolonged editwars, that include adding Polish claims to German folklore figure ], switching of historic German place names to current Polish ones in ] and ], and repeatedly re-adding a superfluous mentioning of Danzig/Gdańsk to the article on the Swiss printing hose ], he called me a ''hardheaded edit warrior''.

			Just wondering. -- ] ]  16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:53, 28 April 2010

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.

Start a new talk topic

TheDarkLordSeth

You were involved in an appeal filed at AE a week or so ago by the above user in relation to his topic ban from the Armenia topic area. Could you please take a look at User talk:AGK#TDLS AE appeal, and if you can, offer comment? He makes some compelling arguments, and I am inclined to think that a topic ban was too harsh and/or that a second chance is in order. Thanks, AGK 13:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I'm not asking for you to vote in support of overturning the sanction. As you say, that kind of thing can only be done on AE or whatnot. I'm only asking for your thoughts on whether a second chance would be warranted. AGK 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow

HalfShadow was being funny, with that picture and stuff at AN/I. Then he was mad because he was blocked for what he did, so you should not punish him because he is upset, you should lighten up on HS because we need him. AN/I would be all serious problems and boring if people get blocked for humor. I think that he has been blocked too long, please think about that for a while. 68.28.104.232 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ulmgambolputty

Ulmgambolputty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:SPA account on topic of Scientology, see only edits to articles on Misplaced Pages, and . This has been a prior pattern of SPA accounts on this topic, to show up and remove the word "controversial" from appearing anywhere in the lede of articles relating to front groups of the organization. Can you please give the account a warning, notifying it of the relevant applications of WP:ARBSCI? I will refrain from doing it myself, as I have been involved in improvement of quality-rated content on the topic. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, thanks for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian

Pity only that Varsovian was already warned very recently on the article talk page. . How many more warnings will he get? If you read the discussion on ANI, the part about Mr.Moszynski, Varsovian is continuing to claim that he is a liar even if he has completely zero sources for that. Dr. Loosmark 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please post a diff showing where I use the word 'liar' on ANI. Thank you. Varsovian (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just discovered that it seems that Varsovian was already warned for his behavior on the London Parade page in October 2009 for for engaging in tendentious "original research" and aggressively edit-warring. Six months later he still engaging in original research and edit-warring and he still receiving "warnings". One doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Dr. Loosmark 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your emotions are of no interest to me. I have commented further in the ANI thread. Sandstein 19:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I read your comment at ANI. Interesting, the guy is doing the same kind of disruption on the same page after being warned twice, makes false claims on sources, calls people liars, fails to even admit that he edit warring was bad but escapes sanctions because he "reverted himself". (And read his edit summary he claims he reverted himself "to avoid wiki drama", not because what he did was wrong). Lets stop kidding, any Polish editor would be put on 1RR and topic bans if they would had done 10% of what Varsovian did. I for example got hammered down with a heavy 6 months long sanctions after two reverts, no edit wars, nothing and I reverted myself too. Dr. Loosmark 11:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian again

Instead of being happy that he narrowly avoided sanctions Varsovian is at it again. There is a discussion on the Frederic Chopin talk page whether he should be considered "Polish" or "French-Polish". user:Varsovian appeared and made this edit . (note that nobody ever claimed that the British excluded the Poles from the parade because they were nasty people). This is a clear attempt at trying to spread the battlefield from the London Parade article to Chopin article, as the London Parade has absolutely nothing to do with Chopin. I ask you enforce Digwuren arbitration to Varsovian. Dr. Loosmark 15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere. Sandstein 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, and (to the best of my knowledge) nobody has ever posted stating that Chopin should be described as purely French but that is still being discussed. Just as I have never claimed that Chopin was a bastard but a certain editor claims that I did. However, as you find the ironic comment about myths to be so offensive, I will strike it all through. Do let me know if you'd prefer that I delete the entire comment. Varsovian (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, nobody has ever posted stating that Chopin is purely French but that is still being discussed because the topic is clearly Chopin nationality. Trying to spread the disagreements from the London Parade article is something completely different. I hope Sandstein won't fall again for the "I reverted myself so nothing happened" trick again although I won't be holding my breath. Dr. Loosmark 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Remind me, was it me who brought up the topic of WWII myths? And isn't it you who is on that very talkpage accusing another editor of being a racist (which is what a race-baiter is)? Varsovian (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I have not brought up any myths and I have not accused anybody of being racist on that talk page. Please Varsovian stop making up things, it doesn't help your cause. Dr. Loosmark 15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC) You are perfectly correct that you did not bring up the topic of WWII myths: and neither did I. However, you have said "Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors" . You are accusing Dan of race-baiting. Race-baiting is a form of racism. I would be most grateful if you could refrain from saying that I make things up: if anybody has a record of making things up when it comes to what other editors, it is you ( where you falsely assert that I claimed Chopin was a bastard). Varsovian (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I wrote that because comparing Chopin seeing himself as Pole, with a person seeing himself as a dog, is disgraceful. However I have not reported Dr.Dan because at least he still stick somewhat to the topic. As for the other part of your post Varsovian, I think it would be better for yourself if we don't go into the that disgraceful "Chopin is bastard" incident. Be happy that's a bygone. Dr. Loosmark 16:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I should be happy that you have decided to stop claiming that I called Chopin a bastard? Would you like me to also thank you for deciding to stop lying about what I said? Or is merely my happiness sufficient for you? Would you say that your accusation that Dan is a racist fits with WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I have not accused Dan of being a racist and I don't think he is a racist. Seems that once more you reverted to your old tactic of throwing 360 degrees accusations to make a mess and muddy the waters. I will let Sandstein evaluate your behavior and I won't comment in this thread anymore, unless Sandstein asks me too. Dr. Loosmark 17:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The offensive comment is now struck through. If you'd like to do something constructive, I have posted a list of proposed changes to the London Victory parade article at that article's talkpage. Why not have a look and work with me on improving the article? Varsovian (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere. Sandstein 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yes, and (to the best of my knowledge) nobody has ever posted stating that Chopin should be described as purely French but that is still being discussed. Just as I have never claimed that Chopin was a bastard but a certain editor claims that I did. However, as you find the ironic comment about myths to be so offensive, I will strike it all through. Do let me know if you'd prefer that I delete the entire comment. Varsovian (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nobody has ever posted stating that Chopin is purely French but that is still being discussed because the topic is clearly Chopin nationality. Trying to spread the disagreements from the London Parade article is something completely different. I hope Sandstein won't fall again for the "I reverted myself so nothing happened" trick again although I won't be holding my breath. Dr. Loosmark 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Remind me, was it me who brought up the topic of WWII myths? And isn't it you who is on that very talkpage accusing another editor of being a racist (which is what a race-baiter is)? Varsovian (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not brought up any myths and I have not accused anybody of being racist on that talk page. Please Varsovian stop making up things, it doesn't help your cause. Dr. Loosmark 15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct that you did not bring up the topic of WWII myths: and neither did I. However, you have said "Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors" . You are accusing Dan of race-baiting. Race-baiting is a form of racism. I would be most grateful if you could refrain from saying that I make things up: if anybody has a record of making things up when it comes to what other editors, it is you ( where you falsely assert that I claimed Chopin was a bastard). Varsovian (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that because comparing Chopin seeing himself as Pole, with a person seeing himself as a dog, is disgraceful. However I have not reported Dr.Dan because at least he still stick somewhat to the topic. As for the other part of your post Varsovian, I think it would be better for yourself if we don't go into the that disgraceful "Chopin is bastard" incident. Be happy that's a bygone. Dr. Loosmark 16:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I should be happy that you have decided to stop claiming that I called Chopin a bastard? Would you like me to also thank you for deciding to stop lying about what I said? Or is merely my happiness sufficient for you? Would you say that your accusation that Dan is a racist fits with WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not accused Dan of being a racist and I don't think he is a racist. Seems that once more you reverted to your old tactic of throwing 360 degrees accusations to make a mess and muddy the waters. I will let Sandstein evaluate your behavior and I won't comment in this thread anymore, unless Sandstein asks me too. Dr. Loosmark 17:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The offensive comment is now struck through. If you'd like to do something constructive, I have posted a list of proposed changes to the London Victory parade article at that article's talkpage. Why not have a look and work with me on improving the article? Varsovian (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Again and Again

Sandstein, I am wondering whether users are permitted to escape sanctioning by hit-and-run tactics, that is striking some articles, and then retreating in time, before admins can (or are willing to) act effetively? After a hiatus of weeks or months, rinse and repeat, deja vu all over again, etc.

You seem to be very patient with User:Loosmark, who has a habit, apart from his back and forth semi retiring, to ask you here to intervene against his foes. On the other hand, only six weeks ago, you readily blocked me, for what you called "nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct and harrassment". I'm wondering how you would describe the recent behavior of Loosmark? You once again complied with his demands and Digwuren-restricted his opponent User:Varsovian, so one might say that harrassment was successful here. Please look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination), where Loosmark, against overwhelming consensus of many neutral editors, does not hesitate to once again defend the vanity article on EEML member Poeticbent. Can this be explained other than with nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct on behalf of a fellow Pole?

Following Loosmark's examples, may I ask you about User:Mamalala, who showed up again recently, and got warned by FPaS, but not placed on Digwuren notice?

Another example is User:Space Cadet, a very seasoned user and sock puppeteer (self admitted to User:Tirid Tirid) who was placed under Digwuren editing restriction in 2008, occasionally returns to conduct edit wars, mainly on German/Polish place naming. In the summary to his recent four reverts in prolonged editwars, that include adding Polish claims to German folklore figure Rübezahl, switching of historic German place names to current Polish ones in Wilhelm Gnapheus and Mauritius Ferber, and repeatedly re-adding a superfluous mentioning of Danzig/Gdańsk to the article on the Swiss printing hose Henricus Petrus, he called me a hardheaded edit warrior.

Just wondering. -- Matthead Discuß 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)