User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/May

Merge of Transmeta microprocessors to Transmeta

Hello! You merged Transmeta Crusoe [1] and Efficeon to Transmeta [2]. As there was no consensus to merge and you have provided no rationale, I have reverted your edits in order to improve the articles. Rilak (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion

The topic ban was to be imposed on all three editors involved. Have you only imformed me? When are you going to inform the other two - until the other two are informed I do not acknowledge the topic ban because that is not what the community argeed.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The bit Sandstein imposed was the indef topic ban for you, not the topic ban for all three editors. I think the proposal for an indef just for you was in the first AN/I thread rather than the second. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the editors that supported the topic ban are neutral and there is a separate discussion with regards a topic ban ongoing below. I am not going to be singled out here especially as I am in the right. Sandstein - you topic ban is invalid whilst there is an ongoing discussion - a cabal of involved editors does not equate to community concensus and I do not acknowledge it.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you acknowledge the ban is up to you, but if you ignore it, you will be blocked. Your mere assertion that "none of the editors that supported the topic ban are neutral" is insufficient to invalidate the community consensus found by me in favor of your topic ban. We do not expect our editors to be "neutral", at any rate, as long as they are not writing articles.  Sandstein  12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not allowed to post on his talkpage, but for a further bit of incivility try this and this. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that Vintagekits (talk · contribs) has started posting to his talk page a list of the baronet articles whose page titles he feels are problematic. As Choess has noted there, this doesn't seem to contravene the terms of his topic ban, and I'd like to add that I agree -- I it's a very productive and helpful thing for him to do. I'm drawing this your attention because you imposed the ban, and just in case there is any suggestion of the list being inappropriate, I thought it might help to set out my view that the list will be helpful and my hope that won't regard it as a breach of the topic ban.

The checks he lists fall a long way short of what's needed before a page move in this territory (which is how we got into all the drama), but it's a useful starting point for further checking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll not block him for drawing up that list, but as I have mentioned to Choess, any user that directly acts on it may be subject to sanctions for proxying for a topic-banned user. It's unproblematic as a starting point for a discussion among non-topicbanned users, though.  Sandstein  21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I would hope would happen is that the list is copied somewhere else (e.g. a subpage of the peerage and baronetcy project), and editors can list what checks they have done on each of the articles. Any resulting moves are quite easily done -- the time-consuming bit is the research, and once that's done a wider consensus can be sought, perhaps by listing the conclusions at WP:RM. Does that sound like a suitable approach, and one which would not be classed as proxying? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of an approach similar to BHG's. Project space would be fine, or I'd be happy to lend a user subpage. Vk has given short rationales for each one, which is very helpful; I was thinking that BHG, I, and other interested editors could add an agree/disagree & short rationale for each choice. Once things have suitably stabilized, we can move the ones where Vk, BHG, I, &etc. all agree...that way we'll accomplish something before the 5% controversial residue blows up in our face again. I'll try to get that ginned up this week, unless someone gets there before me. Choess (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Proxying

Understood—if there's anything that everyone can take away from this affair, it's not to be hasty with controversial projects. Right now I'd just like a chance to review the moves he's proposing and get input from others as well. (I suspect that, in the end, VK, BHG and I will agree that most of these are, in fact, conformant with the MoS.) But I'll wait to see where this goes before moving anything. Choess (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

re unresolved ANI section

It is fine with me (I was indeed away) - but I do not see how this is going to progress the matter. Straight from the start there was a misunderstanding that you were the attacked admin, and subsequent supporting comments are in respect of Vk's recent history rather than if either the block or unblock were inappropriate. I hoped, especially after Tznkai's comments, that stepping back from a hot area of dispute would allowed for cooler consideration of the events. I doubt if there will be a consensus over which admin action was more right, or that there is going to be any further serious consideration of them than there has already been. I see Tznkai has made another excellent suggestion, and perhaps you might speak to Bishonen about abandoning this section for now and perhaps discussing the matter tomorrow in the presence of some neutral third party? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied to Tznkai's suggestion. The misunderstandings seem to be cleared up now.  Sandstein  22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It unresolved itself to WP:RFAR. You havent been named as a party, but your name has been mentioned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that Tznkai was wrong to do so; if we had just closed the thread as topicbanning Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, as I proposed, this would have been generally accepted and a RfAr would not have been necessary.  Sandstein  08:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits unblocked

Hi, Sandstein. I have unblocked Vintagekits. Please see my unblock reason here and in the log. Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

I note that we disagree with respect to the merits of the block (which, I might add, another administrator endorsed upon review), but my principal concern is that Wikipedia:BP#Unblocking specifies that "except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me why you did not contact me prior to unblocking Vintagekits.  Sandstein  19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, but a) I don't read "should avoid" as any kind of absolute prohibition—it's certainly broken often enough—and b) I didn't figure you WP:OWNed the blocked status of Vintagekits. A and b are connected, naturally. A counter-question: didn't you think your block was controversial, and ought to have been discussed on ANI before you implemented it? I think you might have tried to see if there was consensus for blocking VK again, after BrownHairedGirl's recent block. It's a principle that users get to blow off a bit of steam on their talkpage while they're blocked; in my opinion, it wouldn't have hurt to apply it to VK the day after his block. He was obviously upset, yet you seem to have gone by the principle of treating him with extra strictness (telling him he's in breach of WP:CIVIL for saying "be quiet"...) rather than cutting him any slack whatsoever. Yes, we do disagree about the merits of your block. I rather doubt a discussion of it between us would have gotten very far; I fear it would simply have eaten up those 24 hours. But if you disapprove strongly of my IAR, perhaps you'd like to take my action to WP:ANI or WP:RFAR Bishonen | talk 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I disapprove strongly. I do not believe in cutting anyone any slack whatsoever with respect to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, under any but the most exceptional circumstances. This is because these policies are fundamental necessities in any collaborative endeavour. Vintagekit in particular, given his block log for similar conduct, gets a strongly negative amount of slack from me. You are, of course, free to disagree with this, but I am disappointed that you chose to do so in a very uncollegial fashion by means of an unilateral unblock, thereby contributing to creating an environment more conducive to personal attacks and incivility. I will seek the community's input on both of our actions in this matter on WP:ANI.  Sandstein  21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please consider encouraging these "fundamental necessities" by modelling them rather than by brute force (=blocks); that's policy, too.[3] I'm sorry to hear you're determined to expose particular individuals to "a strongly negative amount of slack". I do understand that your intentions in this are good, but such selectiveness seems, to me, in practice neither fair nor humane. Please reconsider, Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

I do try to set an example, of course (did I not, at some point?) but I do not think that you, as a longtime administrator, seriously believe that this is all we need to do and that consequently nobody should ever be blocked in order to stop continued disruption. What I meant with cutting negative slack is that users who have received many blocks for incivility and similar disruption, as Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, are assumed to know that this community (and you too, I hope) does not appreciate such conduct, and consequently do not need to be warned prior to a civility block. This manner of proceeding strikes me as neither selective nor unfair.

You will have noticed that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for community review of Vintagekit's block and unblock, most commentators agree with my block and almost all disagree with your out-of-process-unblock. I would like to ask you to agree that you will, in the future, adhere to our blocking policy and "except in cases of unambiguous error ... avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them", which notably means not performing unilateral unblocks such as these.  Sandstein  19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read that discussion again and check whether it specifically supports what you say. To me it looks as if there was a consensus that your block wasn't particularly good, overshadowed by a stronger consensus that Bishonen's unblock was bad. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have phrased it better, yes. The editors supporting the block are Nja247, ThuranX and Chillum. On the other hand, Tznkai, LessHeard vanU and John think it was a debatable block. Nobody unequivocally disagrees with the block. At any rate, I would still appreciate a reply by Bishonen.  Sandstein  20:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, and after claiming you're "not interested in vindication"? I won't make any such undertaking, sorry. The reason I didn't attempt a discussion before unblocking was past experience: my conviction that nothing positive could come out of it, per the reasons you gave for blocking Giano recently—in fact the least informative block reasons I've ever seen, "res ipsa loquitur", and "if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is" (and these only after being pressed for reasons, yet). You were then away from the computer, with a parting admonition that any unblocker find consensus first (and, again, they would have had 24 hours to find it.) And, again, I totally disagreed with the block and the block reason. Did you go by Giano's block log rather than by what was actually going on at the time, as you did with Vintagekits? (This is an example only. There was no question of myself unblocking Giano, since he's a friend of mine. But it made an impression on me.) To summarize, I believe the practicalities—the 24 hours and your own preconceived opinions—would have completely prevented me from unblocking Vintagekits, once I entered the quagmire of arguing with you. I may find myself in a similar situation again; therefore, I will not make the undertaking you request. You may not think so, Sandstein, but I go by a set of ethics, just as you do; I will do what I believe in. Wikipedia is a kind of collective animal, where the community is very important; but the community's interest in your request for review has been limited. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for the reply, at least, even though it is rather amusing to read your preconceived opinion about what you assume, judging from an unrelated case, to be my preconceived opinion in this one. I do think you acted in good faith, but also with exceptionally poor judgment, and am somewhat surprised that you have not taken the community's opinion regarding your action to heart. You may also mistake me in another point: In my administrative duties, unlike you, I do not seek to do what I "believe in", but what the rules we have agreed on command.  Sandstein  21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No indeed, I didn't mistake that. I noticed it. OK, I'm done on your page. You're surprisingly rude for such a lover of Civility, Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Arb Enf: Matthead

Thanks for taking the time and making a fair decision.radek (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Sandstein/Archives/2009/May's Day!

User:Sandstein/Archives/2009/May has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Sandstein/Archives/2009/May's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Sandstein/Archives/2009/May! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  05:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no opinion on the problem as such, I just once attempted to close a discussion with what I perceived to be consensus on the issue.  Sandstein  05:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Exodus from Lydda

I don't think there's any need for protection, Sandstein. The reverting had stopped, and I posted an RfC, which people are responding to. Did someone request protection? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, about an hour ago NoCal100 and Ceedjee were still reverting each other. But as soon we have documented agreement on the talk page, I'll of course lift the protection.  Sandstein  17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,
That was a wise decision.
Thank you for this. Ceedjee (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not object, but think this discussion should have been together with the other conversation on the noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, could you unprotect now, please, so that normal editing may resume? The RfC continues on talk, and no one is going to start reverting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the protection has expired.  Sandstein  21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Half-Life: Uplink (film)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Half-Life: Uplink (film). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 86.149.60.116 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sniperking134

This user has tried again on your {{2nd chance}}. The new edit involves expanding a table at List of songs in Guitar Hero: Metallica to include the album of the original song and whether the song is rated "impossible", plus some more text again with poor grammar. I don't review 2nd chance reevaluations, so I'm letting you know it's there for you to look at. Mangojuice^talk 16:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For your convenience, here's his edit: [4] Mangojuice^talk 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let somebody else evaluate this.  Sandstein  21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I've replied on my page. okedem (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Request,

Could you please remove User:Starlink2009's ability to edit their talk page? They're basically using it to personally attack others, saying what they did they knew was vandalism, etc. They don't plan on editing constructively, nor do they care about what we do here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just ignore him. The talk page will eventually be protected after a few unconstructive unblock requests.  Sandstein  09:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Certainly not a big deal, but us little people can't actually view links to Special:UserRights like the one you posted here. So linking to Special:ListUsers like this works a bit better. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 15:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kilcar GAA

Hi, I was just curious as to why you deleted it? This is a record of the team winning a national championship and there was more than one user who chose keep at the discussion. I can't see the consensus as the speedy deletes were early in the discussion when this was not available. --candle•wicke 14:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A national championship? Gnevin's opinion referred to a "county championship", but that was apparently a typo. I'll undo my closure.  Sandstein  15:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion (more than an opinion, a source in fact) referred to the team being a top national side in some competition or other and having won at least one other trophy fifteen years previously. But I see you've undone it now, thanks. --candle•wicke 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Response, And Apologies...

I should have thought about the "spam-blocker" on my personal email account.

As a result, I'll change my page preferences so that I can now be reached directly at another address.

Sorry about that!

Wondering About Wiki (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI on AfD closures

I was mistaken in assuming Docu was not an admin and have apologised to him/her for that. Docu, never answered my question when I asked if he/she was an admin, and they didn't answer that question. nor is there any mention of being an admin on their user page. also I cannot view Special:UserRights/Docu as you mention, on my account. However, my ANI report was not seeking a deletion review, I agree with the decision that the articles survived deletion, however it was no consensus outcome not a keep in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

concerning the above, you would be interested in seeing the deletion review I requested here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with edit by edit war situations

I understand that arbcom has come down hard on edit warring in the I/P articles, and since I have a hard time counting my reverts anyhow, I am interested in finding a more effective way to edit articles in the I/P area.

The problems are a little complex. For instance, today I made this edit [5] to the Self-hating Jew article (which by its content is very much an I/P article). The sentence I moved is problematic, and needs at minimum to be attributed. User:Rd232 reverted this edit before he got around to replying to me comments on the talk page [6]. The talk page discussion is here [7]. So what do ,I do? Discussion has produced mostly accusations against me, and nothing about correcting a problem in the article. The move to the talk page was reverted. Another edit, attributing the source, was reverted. Is this something that can be taken to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? I would be happy to discuss the issue on the talk page, but other editors do not seem open to discussion.

This sentence referring to the term "self-hating Jew"

The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity,where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli government policy.

In my view, without attributing it to its author, this sentence gives the appearance that WP stands behind the statement, as though it was scientifically established laws of thermodynamics or evolution. I do not think that is responsible editing.

Suggestions of how to deal with an editing impasse, and this is a pretty typical example, would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll not express an opinion about the merits of the content at issue, but contrary to what you say above, the sentence is attributed to the source "Finlay" with a footnote. Whether it would be desirable to label it more clearly as this man Finlay's opinion, e.g. "According to Finlay ..." (as per your second edit) or to move it around, or to remove it altogether (as per your first edit), is a matter for which editorial consensus must be sought.

I agree that much of the talk page discussion is less than helpful because it addresses your perceived motivations and so forth. In your position, I'd attempt to obtain some outside opinions through WP:3O and continue discussion. A noticeboard report would not be helpful here. The reverts by Rd232 of both of your edits is not edit warring (yet), despite the somewhat contentious tone employed, but normal editorial practice per WP:BRD. Should the change-revert cycle continue, we would enter edit-warring territory, but most edit wars involve two editors, not just one. I advise you to let another editor make whatever change, if any, that you may find consensus for.  Sandstein  04:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But this pretty much confirms my view that the recent arbcom decision will change nothing. The reason that nothing will change is because arbcom can not generate collegiality where that is lacking....although it would be so very nice if it could. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD:Robert Williams

Hey Sandstein, could I get a oopy of the now deleted article Robert Williams (robot fatality) please? I don't know how that evaded my watchlist but these things happen. That was some pretty lame consensus for anything, but I don't hang out at AFD much, maybe that's normal. It was after all the first person crushed to death by a robotic device, so I don't exactly buy the ONEEVENT or "delete as pointless trivia" arguments.

It's unfortunate that I didn't catch this as it happened. I'd like to review the article and I have a convenient localwiki where I can do so. I'll shoot you a mail now in case you need a target to send attachments. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was not deleted, just redirected. Its content can be seen here: [8].  Sandstein  07:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh haha, I was very recently discussing "stupid things" I've done, this will go on the list I suppose. Yes, I could have made that one extra mouse-click. Dang. Could you help me instead with making that cherry-cheeked embarassed icon? :) Franamax (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem ;-)  Sandstein  08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lessie Wei

Thank you for closing out the Lessie Wei case. I would just like to add, as I am sure you did not notice (I also left a note at WP:ANI) that an editor (User:OlYeller21) added Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com to the proceeding, which was not removed and now is a part of the permanent archive. The category was not there until User:OlYeller21's edit at 17:23, 22 May 2009 (see diff). Could you please remove this bogus category from the archive and warn this editor about such acts of vandalism. Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to have that category deleted, you can submit it for discussion at WP:CfD. I may not delete it unilaterally. Do not accuse others of vandalism, please, unless you are sure it meets the definition at WP:VAND.  Sandstein  08:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. My fault I am sure since I am not always articulate. I am writing to you just because you happen to be the one who closed the pending AFD. Let me explain. The category in question (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com) existed during the period of my ban, which ended in February 2009. I am not seeking to whitewash history; I am simply asking that the category be removed from the saved final version of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lessie_Wei, where it does not belong, but no one apparently noticed due to the heat. This is a case of pure vandalism and I reported it to the WP:ANI as such. This editor (User:OlYeller21) had no business inserting this expired and false category at all. Did he ask approval from anyone? How can User:Rms125a@hotmail.com be a sockpuppet of/for User:Rms125a@hotmail.com?? Please feel free to respond on my talk page. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been taken care of. Thanks anyway. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Request: you can remove, perhaps, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Michel_Deza because all requests done there are addressed. I am a new user; so, sorry if something is wrong. Mdeza (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind if I use your signature template?

Just thought I'd ask, as I like its format. It would be  Fyyer . Thanks :-) ├Fyyer┤ 19:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and do go ahead if you like, of course.  Sandstein  20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mimaki

Dear Sandstein,

By removing the 'Mimaki' article , some links went to nowhere, like those: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Mimaki

You can discuss that this company is not the most important to put in a general encyclopedia and I would agree to that, but then again, in what is this company different to for example Kawai, Sanyo or Ricoh. And why is there a new article at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mimaki_Engineering_Company which is not removed yet.

I can repair all those links manually (I guess), but I don't understand why the last version of the removed page is nowhere to be found or any discussion regarding the removal. In my opinion a piece of interlinked information is thrown out the window seemingly at random.

Best regards, Ingunda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingunda (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about the duplicate Mimaki Engineering Company, which i have now also deleted. I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you are otherwise talking about, or what you would like me to do.  Sandstein  21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Just to let you know, it is here. Syn 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 2

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Promethean (talk · contribs)

This user, that you blocked yesterday, is replacing your block notice with a "comedy" version (although they did remove your signature). I was under the impression that removing such notices during the block was a no-no, especially as they have requested review. They have also promised to revert again when the block ends, as it is a matter of "moral principles". Thanks, Verbal chat 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for being one of the only people who gets the point. I would've thought that people would be more wary of trolls given what happened regarding Kurt... but no, harassment and blatant trolling is okay if you're dissenting. Sheesh. Sceptre (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=293125605" can be shortened by removing the (unnecessary) ?title=, which gives you extra breathing room to add a section anchor. So it becomes "http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?oldid=293125605#DougsTech"

Pedants will note there are ways to get it even shorter, though most of those other ways make me sad and are prone to breakage (e.g., http://wiki.riteme.site/?oldid=293125605#DougsTech or http://enwp.org/?oldid=293125605#DougsTech or using one of the million other URL shorteners). --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to know that, thanks!  Sandstein  20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

USA12345

Just wanted to point out that his last denied block stated the he didn't indicate that he would cease edit warring. The one you declined indicated that he would cease edit warring. And now you say he didn't indicate understanding of the reason he was blocked? It seems to me understanding isn't the issue, he knew he was edit warring and agreed to stop. And why did you protect his talk page? There was nothing inappropriate going on.Drew Smith What I've done 06:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The request I declined made no reference to edit warring, and instead mentioned some "Wikipedia Code" that does not exist. His previous requests also do not show an understanding that what he did was edit warring, and that doing so is wrong ("This should be about communicating the truth", "what you call an edit-war"). I protected the page because it is usual practice to do so after numerous inadequate unblock requests, so as to prevent him from making further unproductive requests.  Sandstein  06:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet with your link? Or was that an accusation of him abusing the unblock template? I'm not attacking, just asking a question. Because it seems to me that he was, at least attempting to, use it corectly.Drew Smith What I've done 06:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What link? I am not accusing you of anything and indeed do not know who you are or what you are doing here.  Sandstein  06:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was reffering to the link in the summary of page protection. But as you don't even know who I am, I guess that answers that question. To answer your question I was the only non-admin editing that talkpage. I came in to this through responding to a post at EAR. I requested the page they were edit warring over to be protected as the edits seemed to be made in good faith. I was hoping to get them to start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Also, the editor seems to be unfamiliar with the policies on wikipedia, and was perhaps arcastically reffering to a non-existant collection of the policies on wikipedia. He was blocked once before, for vandalism, and hasn't vandalised since(as far as I know), so it is safe to assume that, when shown his error, he will conform. I think there was some miscommunication as far as the unblock requests go. I think he saw it as replying to and expanding on the previous unblock requests. They way I've been reading it, he acknowledged that he was edit-warring, and agreed to stop. I am not an admin, and don't particularly want to be, but I have been following this since it started, and would unblock if it were up to me. But it appears that he won't be editing at all for two weeks, and probably won't come back, so I guess I'll just forget about the whole thing... Drew Smith What I've done 07:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)