→Q: new section |
MarshalN20 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
Hi, given your close at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20]], I was wondering what you thought of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems at War of the Pacific]] and whether (a) action should be taken or (b) it's worth going to arbitration enforcement (again). [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, given your close at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20]], I was wondering what you thought of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems at War of the Pacific]] and whether (a) action should be taken or (b) it's worth going to arbitration enforcement (again). [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Sandstein, Ed is ignoring the context of the situation solely for the purpose of (again) seeing me get in trouble. I have neither contacted [[User:Darkness Shines]] through e-mail nor asked him to be my proxy. If my two sole commentaries in the [[Talk:War of the Pacific]] page are not exceptions to the "vandalism clause" of the [[WP:TBAN]] exceptions, which I understood as allowing me to help resolve matters concerning "obvious vandalism" (which, surely both of these edits constitute: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_the_Pacific&diff=577819181&oldid=577047754], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_the_Pacific&diff=577945934&oldid=577912993], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_the_Pacific&diff=578096165&oldid=577988698]), then all that needs to be done is to remove my comments in War of the Pacific's talk page. |
|||
:That Ed is so engaged against me that he would rather simply see me blocked, rather than use his rationality to exercise his administrative powers in an appropriate manner given the context of the situation, is deeply concerning to me.--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] | [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:02, 24 October 2013
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or 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.
WP:ARBPIA questions
Hey, Sandstein, I need some help sorting something out. First, in this section of the case, the clear vandalism item was struck (I assume that when it says "suppressed" underneath, that's all that means). Then in the last bullet point it says what the amendment was. Wouldn't it be easier if the suppressed point #1 was replaced with the amendment? Am I misreading this? Second, in the case of a registered account, the case says that a violation of 1RR can result in sanctions even without a warning. Yet, the warning template, {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, is much milder. The language of the template effectively says that except in "egregious" cases, there must always be a warning first. Shouldn't the template language be changed to match the reality?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I can help you there, as I've not followed the drafting and application of these provisions. The only body who can authoritatively clarify them is the Arbitration Committee, at WP:ARCA. Sandstein 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bbb23, the Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement is old (2008) and it ought to be deprecated. For notifying an individual, Template:ArbCom-Alert is better. The more severe Template:uw-sanctions will also serve. Happy to discuss these matters on my talk page if you are interested. The 'warning' spoken of in the template you mention is the usual DS warning. I don't think it refers to enforcement of the 1RR. The 1RR restriction is an addition by the community post-ARBPIA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Yerevanci, previously topic banned editor due to arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction, falsifying sources
Hello Sandstein. You previously topic banned User:Yerevanci [1] [2]. I'm wondering if you can look at the Turkish people page. Several editors are falsifying sources (detailed explanation here: User_talk:Proudbolsahye#Falsification_of_Sources) Yerevanci is adding the same problematic material, despite my edit summaries that I warned 2 editors about source falsification. I am not against such content, when they are properly cited; however, I am against misrepresentation of sources.Cavann (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wilful source falsification can be grounds for sanctions, however care must be taken to distinguish such cases from good-faith misinterpretations or disagreements about source interpretation. If you think this is misconduct, the place to report it is WP:AE. Sandstein 13:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Wtshymanski
Sigh. It's happening again. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know (any more) what the problem is or how I can help. Sandstein 12:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Full protection removed from Rupert Sheldrake
Hi, did you mean to cancel Barek's 10-day full protection? vzaak (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, that was inadvertent. @Barek:, is that a problem or is semi enough? Edit-warriors can also be warned and sanctioned per WP:AC/DS. Sandstein 12:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I won't restore full protection if you believe that semi-protection is sufficient.
- The initial disruption was from an IP; but I still did full protection due to the subsequent reverts by registered users. They were engaging in talk page discussions, but simultaneously reverting each other in the article. So my intent had been to allow time for the talk discussion to make progress, potentially removing the protection early if consensus was reached one way or the other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The edit-warring seems not to have resumed, so I'm not reapplying full protection right now, Can of course be reapplied if problems resume. Sandstein 08:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit counter
The edit counter link on your user page doesn't seem to be working. Lou Sander (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm
Want me to login to my admin account to make that comment instead? ES&L 09:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't know you had an admin account. Using that account to make comments in admin sections would probably be preferable. Sandstein 09:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of the many reasons why its stupid to treat users comments differently. The comments from non admins are generally just as important and often more so than those from an admin. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or one could say that it is confusing for users to have differently-named admin and non-admin accounts. With regard to AE, the convention to separate admin and non-admin comments is because only admins can act on AE requests, and, in that limited sense, only their opinions are relevant. Sandstein 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct that only admins can act on them but you are completely and utterly incorrect that only their opinions are relevant. That is absolutely incorrect. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or one could say that it is confusing for users to have differently-named admin and non-admin accounts. With regard to AE, the convention to separate admin and non-admin comments is because only admins can act on AE requests, and, in that limited sense, only their opinions are relevant. Sandstein 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of the many reasons why its stupid to treat users comments differently. The comments from non admins are generally just as important and often more so than those from an admin. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Q
Hi, given your close at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20, I was wondering what you thought of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems at War of the Pacific and whether (a) action should be taken or (b) it's worth going to arbitration enforcement (again). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, Ed is ignoring the context of the situation solely for the purpose of (again) seeing me get in trouble. I have neither contacted User:Darkness Shines through e-mail nor asked him to be my proxy. If my two sole commentaries in the Talk:War of the Pacific page are not exceptions to the "vandalism clause" of the WP:TBAN exceptions, which I understood as allowing me to help resolve matters concerning "obvious vandalism" (which, surely both of these edits constitute: [3], [4], and [5]), then all that needs to be done is to remove my comments in War of the Pacific's talk page.
- That Ed is so engaged against me that he would rather simply see me blocked, rather than use his rationality to exercise his administrative powers in an appropriate manner given the context of the situation, is deeply concerning to me.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)