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

Unfair block , ungrounded statements

1. You made an absolutely ungrounded statement, when you said to me: "you are mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia. ". I have proven beyond the reasonable doubt that you were dead wrong on that . On the other hand latuff was brought “here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia”, which he is successfully achieving with the help of some users and activists administrators as yourself.
2. I’ve provided few reliable sources (such as working definition for antisemitism, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Robert S. Wistrich) to prove my point. You have chosen to ignore each and every one of them, and called them “original research”
3. Please allow me to provide only one quote by latuff for your enjoyment: “And of course people are allowed to make funny cartoons on Jews being gassed”. Please notice not even Israelis, just Jews.
4. I am not going to touch anything connected to latuff ever again, but not because I was not right in my assessment of the man,but because there's way too much [....] around latuff,and the more one touches that [....] the more it stinks.I would not be surprised, if you are to block me again,but may I please ask you to notice that now, after my above statement of stopping editing the article,the block would be a punitive sanction?

Conclusion: The block was unfair, the statement about my contributions was ungrounded and offensive.

You abused your administrative tools.Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please take the advice by Elen of the Roads. You are free to hold the personal opinion that the work of this cartoonist is antisemitic, and after a look at his work, I see why reasonable people can hold this opinion. But: Per WP:BLP, you are not allowed on Wikipedia to call somebody an antisemite and a holocaust denier unless accompanied by a reference to a reliable source that describes this exact person in these exact terms. No ifs and buts.  Sandstein  09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. How come you did not block me for writing his name in small letters? I am not sure you could see why " why reasonable people can hold this opinion". You did not loose relatives in the Holocaust as I did, the relatives that I have never known because I was born much after the war. Your father did not tell you the stories how he was captured by nazis 2 times in a row, and what he experienced before he was able to run away. Your mother did not tell you a story about her sister, who committed suicide, when she knew she could not get away from nazis.
In your response you did not address the number 1 - your ungrounded statement about my own contributions.
Elen of the Roads said: "On that basis, I would support a call for your unblock".
Two quotes from Wikipedia article: "In 2002 the Swiss-based Holocaust survivors organization Aktion Kinder des Holocaust sued the Indymedia of Switzerland on the charge of anti-Semitism for publishing Latuff's cartoon titled We are all Palestinians series in their website, which depicted a Jewish boy in Warsaw Ghetto saying: "I am Palestinian."" and In their 2003 Annual Report, the Stephen Roth Institute compared Latuff's work to "the antisemitic caricatures of Philip Ruprecht in Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer." The article has Antisemitism category. Anyway we're talking different languages.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, thanks for your message on my talk page. I am going to remove it not because of what you have written (you are welcome to post a message at my talk page at any time, even it the message is a block notification :) ), but because I would not like to have the link to latuff article on my talk page. My opinion did not change. The thing is that to me WP:BLP do not apply to anti-Semites because anti-Semites cannot be considered persons, they are just that... well, just anti-Semites. I still believe that I have provided enough reliable sources to support my statements. I understand that you might have a different opinion, and I will understand, if after this message, you will block me or topic ban me. I understand you are obligated to do so by Wikipedia policies. I will accept the punishment with no complains, and, if for nothing else, my block will make Tiamut happy :) She has already tried to make me blocked once before, when she claimed I was a sock, and never retracted her accusations even after Nableezy told her that he "near 100% sure" I am not a sock. Few days ago she succeed in her second attempt to have me blocked :) Oh, well... Anyway... I will never change my opinion, I will not retract any statements I have made on the subject, and I am not going to touch the article ever again because as I explained earlier it stinks way too much. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you being blocked does not make me happy. I thought you had forgiven me for thinking you were a sock earlier. You apologized and I apologized, remember? Its all on my talk page. Anyway, it seems you want to be a wiki martyr, since you believe your opinion is more important than our policies. That's your perogative, but I derive no joy from it. Tiamut^talk 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A martyr? Nope,it is not about me. I do not believe in 72 virgins awaiting for me in the paradise, you know. Everything is much simpler. As Albert Einstein said “Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it”. I will never do anything against my conscience even, Wikipedia policies demand it, and besides, IMO any Wikipedia policy should be satisfied by that source: the [....] is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sensitivity to anti-Semitism notwithstanding, an anti-Islamic allusion when talking to your Semitic sister is par for the course. No worries Mbz1, I remember what we have in common. I'm singing it in my head right now: "I could have danced all night, I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more ..." Tiamut^talk 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I am afraid that once again you've got me wrong, and your accusation in "anti-Islamic allusion" has no ground whatsoever. You were talking about martyrs.In Houri, which is Islam, 72 virgins have nothing to do with martyrs. 72 virgins tale that is used to recruit homicide bombers is used by radical Islam. I have nothing against Islam - the religion of peace. I am very much against the radical Islam the religion of homicide bombers. Any problem with that? The song is good. That musical makes me feel better always. Too bad that most Muslim women, who live in Islam countries will never watch it --Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare

Could you please comment on the issues that have been raised at User talk:Brews ohare in relation to your recent block? Also note, if you haven't already saw: an unblock request has been filed and is pending. Thanks, AGK 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did comment on the unblock request; Brews ohare then removed my comment.  Sandstein  08:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not think to check the history (not expecting him to be so petty). AGK 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I was just wondering, why did you delete the page about the Black Rock Shooter character? I really wanted to know more about her, as I don't quite understand the storyline from all the Anime trailers. So could you please put it back? Thank you :)

Teh Wiki Person (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A link, please.  Sandstein  08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Black_Rock_Shooter Thank you ^_^

Teh Wiki Person (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The page was deleted because there was consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Rock Shooter. To restore it you would need to show how it meets our inclusion guideline WP:N. Please see also WP:WWMPD.  Sandstein  21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh...thanks...although I would like it to be added in April. ^^ I'll show you later, though. Thank you for answering! ^^ Teh Wiki Person (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani Discussion

[[1]] to Review Brews Block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you revert this; if the comment was a few hours late, I'd agree with your action, but barely a few minutes doesn't justify that in any noticeboard discussion. I hope you will see why it's reasonable to make the exception. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all right, done. It doesn't really matter, but every discussion has to stop at some point after a decision has been made.  Sandstein  08:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Silly bickering, now archived

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Will you both please stop the bickering? If there is anything warranting admin action, please make a properly formatted report with well-explained diffs (I can't read minds! Don't just write "here", tell me where!) at WP:ANI or WP:AE, else let it be. Thanks.  Sandstein  21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Unfair Warning to Nefer Tweety

Sandstein: why did you give a warning to User:Nefer Tweety for filing an Enforcement request here? How is NT supposed to know that a request will be non-actionable before they even file it? Why haven't you done the same with User:Supreme Deliciousness who has filed at least two non-actionble Enforcement requests here and here (there are probably many others) against NT, also on the same case? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

?

Hey, has Arab Cowboy violated his topic ban here?

He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [2] "If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked."

Omar Sharif is a part of the scope of the case as can be seen in its history and also has been mentioned in the arbitration case:[3] [4][5]

Omar Sharif discussion continued from its talkpage to the BLP noticeboard, so isn't that also an associated page? AC made several posts there in the Omar Sharif discussion: [6][7][8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

State of Palestine dispute now at WP:AN3

Hello Sandstein. This article is now the subject of a report at report at AN3. Any admin who wishes to can go ahead and close this, but I had the idea of imposing six months of full protection. This would allow changes to the article to be made by consensus, using the {{editprotected}} template. I'd be interested to know if you would consider this a good solution.

The benefit is that an administrator would be in the loop for judging consensus. The current report suggests that participants are doing a poor job of judging consensus on their own. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the dispute, but off the cuff I would not recommend this solution as long as the problem is a few editors edit-warring. That's because the full protection hinders other editors from improving the article. I find it preferable to block the edit-warriors instead. In this case WP:ARBPIA revert restrictions may also help.  Sandstein  19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your preliminary conclusion at WP:AE

Sandstein, I urge you to reconsider this. I will be filing a request for clarification so that the ambiguity cannot cause further disruption, either way. Please consider that the situation I came across, as an editor involved with TurnKey Linux, was resulting in considerable disruption, based on the abuse of Wikipedia process for the purpose of harassing an editor, which is amply established in the evidence provided on AN/I, and the subsequent comment about the off-wiki action that preceded the actual harassment. The actual content issues were not emergencies, with the possible exception of the license, and all of the legitimate issues could be and are being handled through routine process, and my intervention was originally as an involved editor, making allowed edits, not prohibited under my sanction, seeking to encourage discussion, and warning both editors against using revert warring to enforce preferred content. All this was allowed, there has been no dispute about that so far. What was edgier, to be sure, was responding to the AN/I report filed by SamJohnston. However, this, I can and will argue if necessary, was required by immediate concern for the welfare of the project, and was originally designed just to encourage the editors to chill.

Then I discovered what I had merely suspected before, proof that this all was, in fact, planned harassment because of failure of LirazSiri to comply with off-wiki coercion over a relatively minor content dispute. Please look at the evidence!

Meanwhile, if you are concerned about a possibility that "my disruption" will continue, please consider issuing a temporary injuction, pending review by ArbComm, that clarifies the exact meaning of my sanction. Generally, the sanction has been presented as an "MYOB" sanction, intended to prevent me from intervening in disputes where I was not involved, and that was the apparent meaning of "originating party." It wasn't a reference to technicalities, but to substance. Yet it has been interpreted as a pure technicality, ignoring substance. ArbComm has previously been requested to clarify this, but did not choose to address it. They should, don't you agree? --Abd (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)