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

Happy New Year!

Dear Sandstein,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Discussions related to the block of Eric Corbett

Good block

[1] I agree with your rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reflecting on the commentary below and elsewhere, I'm persuaded that a clear warning (that referring to GGTF again will trigger a block) would have been preferable. It would have clarified the boundaries for Eric - which is what was needed - with the least amount of disruption. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• What a poor block. Tell me, how long have you been waiting with fingertips poised on that one? Cassianto^Talk 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• What makes you think I would be?  Sandstein  19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• A knee-jerk block such as yours speaks volumes. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect motives. Cassianto^Talk 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think you should ask Lightbreather to stop posting on Eric's talk page, now that he's blocked. He's removed these so far, and I hope she gets the message not to continue posting there. [2] EChastain (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that users shouldn't leave talk page messages that are clearly unwelcome. But I'm active in this context in an arbitration enforcement capacity, and would prefer to remain active in this capacity only, to prevent concerns of personal involvement in any of the conflicts that may be behind all this.  Sandstein  19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• EChastain, when you write "He's removed these so far..." you make it sound like I've posted at Eric Corbett's talk page multiple times. The fact is, I posted to Eric's talk page ONE time[3] since notifying him yesterday of the enforcement request. The ONE comment was within the enforcement request notification discussion, after another editor compared me to a witch,[4] and Eric replied, "The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across..."

I can't speak for the other women, but I had never heard of Eric before this exchange at WT:AN in July 2014:

Lightbreather: Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?[5]

Eric Corbett: the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[6]

A reminder of this exchange was what I posted in response to his "The only females" remark. Of course, he deleted that reminder because he prefers the narrative that I swooped down on him from outta nowhere and complained of incivility for no reason. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Considering that I tried - twice - to just get his comments removed per Scope of topic bans, but had to go to AE to get action, I think a 48-hour block was very kind. Short of ignoring the breach completely, the only kinder block would have been 24 hours. Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

I am pretty sure that arbitration enforcement is not mandatory and the arbcom never meant for us to not be able to consider each situation individually. You action in regards to the complaint against Eric goes directly against the consensus that was forming there. You took it upon yourself to ignore the opinions of others, cast a supervote and act unilaterally and then close the discussion. I think you know how Eric will react to this and I think this action was not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not going to fight this action however I felt like voicing my opinion. Chillum 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback - I mean this seriously, even if we do not agree in this case. I did consider the individual circumstances of the situation and saw no reason not to enforce the remedy as in any other case of a topic ban violation. Because AE actions are individual admin actions, they are not based on, and do not require, consensus - in this sense, every AE admin has a supervote. Unlike – apparently – others, I do not know Eric Corbett and am not involved in any social circles he may be a part of. How he will react is therefore no concern of mine. Either he complies with the topic ban, in which case the block will have served its purpose, or he does not, in which case he will get blocked for increasing periods of time. What else he may or may not do is his own business.  Sandstein  22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because an action does not require consensus to perform does not mean you can still perform it when a consensus not to do it exists. If you had done this on your own when there was no discussion opposing it then I would not be here. It is the disregard for consensus that concerns me. This is a subtle point but a very important one. The whole point of the AE page is to discuss enforcement, clearly consensus is not banished from the room. Chillum 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I do know Eric and his level of disruption has gone from a 9 out of 10 down to a 2 out of 10 since those sanctions. This coupled with his prodigious article contributions has caused me to go from wanting him banned to wanting him to stay. I also knows he reacts in a self destructive manner when he feels he has been treated unfair. Regardless I think the damage is done. Chillum 22:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, evidently I can do it, because I did, and I also may do it, because the arbitrators who wrote the relevant procedures quite purposefully left out any references to prior discussion or consensus. AE is supposed to be a fast-track enforcement venue, not just another drama board in the vein of AN(I). I'd also argue that the point of AE isn't to discuss, but to request enforcement (it's called requests for enforcement, not discussions about enforcement), and that there wasn't a consensus not to take action. But that is a somewhat academic issue, because there is a place for consensus-finding in the AE process. It's just that it isn't at the enforcement stage but rather at the appeals stage. If and when an appeal is made, then the consensus of other editors or admins becomes relevant, but not before. – As to Eric Corbett, I'm of the view that sanctions, and rules generally, should be applied in an equal and predictable manner no matter who they apply to, or what contributions these people have made, or else they are meaningless. If you think that these sanctions have helped to curb disruption by Eric Corbett, then they can only continue to do so if they are actually enforced.  Sandstein  22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please see the recent ds alert regarding editing on the GGTF project. This ds alert regarding discretionary standards appears to apply only to behavior on the GGTF project pages. Is this right? EChastain (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to whole topic areas, in this case, "pages relating to the Gender gap task force" - that is, not only the project pages as such.  Sandstein  22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. To me it seems like its not a topic ban, it's a project ban, per the wording of the "alert" I gave a link to above. So you are saying that this means that everywhere on wikipedia, on talk pages of editors and other projects and edit summaries, if GGTF is mentioned by an editor, that mention is subject to discretionary standards? EChastain (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see generally WP:AC/DS and WP:TBAN for how the scope of such sanctions is generally described.  Sandstein  22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So at a wikiproject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention, editors are not free to mention anything regarding GGTF without worrying? There is no where that this can be discussed without worry? EChastain (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not engaging in any misconduct such as edit-warring, personal attacks or similar, then there is no reason to worry. But, yes, misconduct related to the GGTF can be addressed through discretionary sanctions on every page of Wikipedia.  Sandstein  22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion but this really doesn't and shouldn't need to be another circus, lets all go back to editing the encyclopedia. If people have their concerns there are other places they can take it to - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

Noted. Please continue any discussions among people who are not me elsewhere.  Sandstein  15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are a disgrace to Wikipedia. If there was a way to desysop you, I would wholeheartedly pursue it. A proverbial admin on a power trip that cannot see further from the nose. Not that its founder is much better. No such user (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I agree. Although stand by, your comments maybe removed like mine were as we only hear of sycophantic backslapping comments here. CassiantoTalk 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I don't and think you should stop harassing here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Fortunatly, I couldn't care what you think. CassiantoTalk 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Can somebody explain to me what the deal with Eric Corbett is that an ordinary block for an ordinary topic ban violation creates this much excitement? I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into one of Wikipedia's complicated social networks to which special rules apply, or whose participants think that this is so. Not that I care about these matters, but it seems really peculiar that this one user attracts that much attention.  Sandstein  22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I recommend a block for no such user for throwing out personal attacks here. Sandstein is I were you id archive these discussions and just move on there are other places these people can go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Well, no, editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page, although I would wish that they'd be a bit more specific about why they object to an action rather than just making very general allegations of bad faith and the like.  Sandstein  22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Its up to you, Eric has people on his side though, you may not have known it but you opened up something here, otherwise, as I think you said this would be more of a routine block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) And where would that be KnowledgeKid? CassiantoTalk 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC) The talk on Eric's talk-page should speak for its-self shouldn't it? With all the things said about Sandstein its becoming a dog pile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) As Sandstein has said "editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page", which is what I'm doing. And if you don't like it Knowledgekid then you know where you can go don't you? CassiantoTalk 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Nice WP:BAITING with that loaded question. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)So I will be more specific: I've been around quite a while, as well as you are. You have a worrying tendency to apply bureaucratic, mindless reading of any rule around, and apply it in the harshest manner possible. In fact, I think you chose AE as your favorite field of operation, because there you can hide behind (never explicitly passed to you, AFAIK), authority of ARBCOM, so that your rush decisions cannot be reversed or easily taken into question. In this particular thread, there was a consensus between admins that the infraction was mild and/or provoked, yet you took it upon yourself to block, knowing that (being AE) it's an irreversible action. What you don't know, or realize, or care, is that this block can only further increase the amount of bad blood and drama on this site. The sooner your bullying actions are removed from the equation, or at least you are desysopped or banned from the AE, the sooner this will be a more pleasant place. Now you can block me, I don't give a fuck. No such user (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. WP:ARBGGTF Enforcement Eric Corbett got off pretty light with a 48-hour block. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Well done, Lightbreather! You haven't often gotten what you wanted on Wikipedia, but today is your day. Enjoy it--you got one of our best editors blocked on a trivial matter, a technicality. Sandstein, the "social circle" of this Corbett, whom you don't claim to know, is called "Wikipedia". Don't pretend this is all just new to you. You know, I got made admin and considered it an honor to be given a kind of power that is my own to wield but is limited, practically and ethically, by the community, in particular a community of admins. Yes, DS allows you to make your own decision, and thus in this case you were indeed free to wipe your ass with what the rest of us had to say. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Had it been any other editor you wouldn't even be here but because "one of our best editors" it all of a sudden is a huge deal that requires hours of debate like even the "best editors" never can make a mistake or do any wrongdoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) The block was harsh and ill-thought out. That's why it has generated such a drama. Your right inasmuch that this pantomime has been caused by Eric being blocked; anyone else would have received a reminder of the ArbCom result and the other party also warned. As it stands Eric has been blocked and the other party is dishing out awards like he's some kind of victim. What, and there's no agenda? CassiantoTalk 06:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) There is no agenda, people just don't like Light it has been evident here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather/Archive and also kindly pointed out again on Eric's talkpage. I am waiting here for another little boy holding a toy baby as a memorial I mean so far we have a cop for Sandstein and wildflowers for Eric's wife all over a 48 hr block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Well I don't even know him/her so I can't be blamed for that. What pisses me off is Sandstein's seamless ability to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and his/her failure to recognise that it takes two to tango. Rather than be fair and block/warn Lightbreather, he/she is now accepting awards from them which gives the impression that he/she endorses Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a [profanity removed] victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose, thus causing this ridiculous pantomime. Lastly, Knowledgekid, I would remind you to remain civil seeing as you are so quick to finger point at others when they make similar comments like the ones above. CassiantoTalk 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not "accepting" any awards, but I can't prevent editors leaving them on my talk page, much like I can't prevent you from offering your opinion. I have not examined the conduct of Lightbreather because my activity here is limited to arbitration enforcement, and no claim of misconduct by Lightbreather that falls under any arbitration remedies or discretionary sanctions has been made, and so I have no opinion as to whether her conduct might have been objectionable. If you think that there is such misconduct, you or anybody else can make an enforcement request at WP:AE. If not, Cassianto and Knowledgekid87, I ask that you please conduct any further discussion between you two elsewhere. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC) You have accepted it by retaining it below. If you were unwilling to accept it because of your "activity" at ArbCom, then you should leave an explanatory note saying "Owing to recent events, and because I am involved at ArbCom, I'm unable to accept this barnstar because....". But you haven't. You claim to be limited not to get get involved when it comes to dishing out warnings fairly, but clearly not involved enough to accept glitterati from involved parties. If you are "uninvolved" then you should not be accepting awards. Lastly, and like I have said before, I will not be making a request at AE because it would not be treated fairly as it's run by a load of Eric hating yes men who don't know their arse from their elbow. CassiantoTalk 14:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC) @Cassianto. Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving (Personal attack removed) is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting. yes men who don't know their arse from their elbow This is grossly uncivil, and, I believe, the number of admins at AE is small enough for this to be considered a PA. Behave yourself.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Are you drunk? CassiantoTalk 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars

Also noted.  Sandstein  15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Barnstar of Integrity People can have faith and confidence only because of guys like you. OrangesRyellow (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I appreciate that.  Sandstein  22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) lol. CassiantoTalk 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disregarding it and warning Lightbreather aside, I disagree with such a use of barnstars. Blocks are not to be celebrated. They may be solemnly endorsed, but to celebrate them is to forget their true nature: they are like the scar left behind when cutting a disruptive branch off a tree, and no one would argue that such scars are anything but ugly and that the tree would not scream if it had a voice. ekips39 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this; apologies for misinterpreting Lightbreather's intentions. Furthermore, I don't disagree with the block -- AFAICT Eric did break his topic ban. ekips39 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

An editor is attempting a block review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Block on Cwobeel. I do not know if AN is the proper place, but I posted the evidence and corrected a false claim made by the OP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have commented there. In my opinion the right way to challenge the block is with an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, which usually is initiated by the person blocked. In the AN post I fixed the spelling of Cwobeel. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel made a block request without the template as he himself acknowledged and used prior, but this malformed request contains false claims. Since you've seen that his first act was to restore the entirely unsourced page and repeatedly dismiss Kww up until the block - I don't think I need to explain in detail here. Though I clarified it to Lugnuts, to help provide perspective. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised. Chinua Achebe --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summary on Cwobeel's page

Sandstein, the link you supplied on Cwobeel's webpage to the AE discussion doesn't work. The link you provided ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=643973454#Cwobeel) ) just gives a bad gateway error. I believe the link you're looking for is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Cwobeel. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Strange, the link works for me.  Sandstein  22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

EC violating his ArbCom sanctions

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision#Eric Corbett prohibited: "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion." Yesterday, he made these comments that I think constitute "insulting and/or belittling other editors": "Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully" and " Do you really believe that editor retention is a priority for the likes of Sandstein?" Today, he has called an editor "filth". Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use this talk page to settle disagreements among other editors.  Sandstein  22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you have nothing better to do Rationalobserver? CassiantoTalk 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I just cannot help but notice that this seems to be in response to your recent content dispute about Oxford commas. Is this really in the best interests of the encyclopedia? Chillum 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC) They are totally unrelated, but thanks for the bad-faith! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Maybe you could clarify who is allowed to report to AE, but I assume it would not include anyone who has ever had a disagreement with EC, which would preclude quite a few people, don't you think? I think calling another editor "filth" is an insult that violates EC's sanctions, and I see absolutely no reason why it's inappropriate to report it just because I found a few oxford commas that don't belong in an article that he helped write. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC) They are clearly not "totally unrelated" at all. Why have you posted this complaint on Sandstein's talk page anyway, instead of at the proper venue? Are you hoping to slide it through without any oversight? Eric Corbett 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Are you really saying that all editors who have ever been in a conflict, or are currently in a content dispute, with you are not allowed to report your violations of sanctions? Really? Also, is it really a content dispute? You have not even taken a position as to whether you agree or disagree with me that it's not okay to have some serial commas here and there but not everywhere. So, if we are in a content dispute together, what exactly do we disagree on? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC) You called OrangesRYellow "filth", which is an insult that violates your ArbCom sanctions. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Did I? What about answering my question though? Are you hoping that Sandstein will simply block me again? Eric Corbett 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure what the proper protocol is, but since he dealt with you yesterday I assumed he might be a good person to show this to today. Now will you answer my question? If we are currently in a content dispute, what exactly do we disagree about? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Haven't I made it clear enough to you that I have no further interest in articles about female subjects, including Enid Blyton? Do what you will with it, I couldn't care less. Eric Corbett 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Above you implied that we were in a content dispute: Chillum: "this seems to be in response to your recent content dispute about Oxford commas"; my response: "They are totally unrelated"; your response: "They are clearly not 'totally unrelated' at all". I'm going to disengage from this now, as I see that you don't want to resolve anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, if you think that there is a case for arbitration enforcement, please make a request at WP:AE, where multiple admins will look at it and where there is a bit more of a structured venue in which to process such requests.  Sandstein  22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I've emailed the diffs to ArbCom. Do you think that's enough, or should I also file at AE? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom will not normally act on incidents which are claimed to require arbitration enforcement, that is the job of WP:AE. If you think that this is actionable, WP:AE is the venue in which to make any request.  Sandstein  22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this is actionable? Because I'd rather not put any more effort into this if it's going to be futile or misguided. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to recuse from acting on any enforcement request that involves alleged personal attacks on myself. I'm not sure about these anyway - I don't know what "one-off" is supposed to mean in this context, and the comment about editor retention is criticism, not an insult. The "filth" comment can be seen as an insult, but I don't claim to be able to predict how others will see this.  Sandstein  22:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've reported the "filth" comment but omitted the rest. I'm sure there is probably something malformed in the report, so could you please take a look and let me know if I've forgotten anything or messed anything up? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my recent harsh criticism of your attitude and actions at AE, I'm going to thank you for this recusal. Let me say that I don't doubt your good faith, but I still have deep reservations about your overall judgment and suitability for being an admin, but that would be an issue for another round. However, I find the amount of sour grapes and kicking the man while on the ground in this sad affair disgusting, to put it mildly. I think I'm going to fuck off your talk page for a while now. No such user (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use this talk page to settle disagreements among other editors.  Sandstein  14:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Calling another editor "filth" isn't exactly EC down on the ground being kicked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Put your reading glasses on. He called "it" filth, not another editor. Unless you consider another editor as an "it". What is malformed is the improper recognition of the pronoun "it". Buster Seven Talk 01:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Moments later EC edited his comment to read: "Seconded, they are indeed 'filth'." Rationalobserver (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Revdelete needed

Possible, but not needed.  Sandstein  15:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sandstein: one regrettable result of your block of Eric Corbett was that OrangesRyellow made a personal attack on Cassianto here on your user talk page. Since the former has not edited since and the best time for them to strike it out as based on a misunderstanding has thus passed, could I ask you to please do the decent thing and revdelete it? I don't believe it would be proper for me or another admin to do so, and hatting is insufficient for something so hurtful. I pinged you at AN/I suggesting this as a step towards reducing the current ill feeling, but being me, I messed up the ping template. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I had offered to withdraw my comment, but Cassianto is refusing to re-word his comment in a non double-meaning way. [7]OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Yngvadottir, I've seen so many personal attacks in the last few days that it would seem slightly pointless to revdelete any particular one of them. Blocking the editors who make them would be a better idea, but pointless because civility blocks don't tend to stick.  Sandstein  14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC) It's day three now and still you are seen to support the filthy comments made by the editor above. I suggest that when this is over you reconsider your position as an administrator as you are clearly incompetent at being one. CassiantoTalk 12:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not "supporting" any of the various personal attacks that have been made here and elsewhere, including by you, and would instead appreciate it if people found another forum to vent their personal issues than my talk page.  Sandstein  14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Then you should be desysoped. You are an utter disgrace. CassiantoTalk 14:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "I'm not "supporting" any of the various personal attacks that have been made here and elsewhere": As a mark of your comment here, I think it would probably be best if you took on board the advice given, revdelete the comment and archive the entire thread. Not revdeleting does not send out a terribly good message, I'm afraid: it makes it look like you tacitly agree wth it, which I am sure is not the case, even if that is the impression given. What is the harm in not revdeleting? It will ensure the bubbling pot of dramah continues to fester in several locations, which isn't the best course of action for any administrator to encourage. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I have no wish to be instrumentalized - or instrumentalized any further - in this opaque feud among what seem to be entire clans of editors mistaking this encyclopedia for a battleground in which to hurl insults at each other. I'm also not going to take seriously a request for revision deletion of an insult insistently demanded by an editor who seems to be unable to leave any comment without a derogatory comment of their own. I'm archiving this thread and intend to respond only to any actionable arbitration enforcement requests that may come up.  Sandstein  15:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Am I topic banned?

HJ Mitchell had left this message on my talk page. Is that the way it is enforced? Am I topic banned now? I want to clarify, AE was not a retaliation and I would have used it before if I knew it existed. At most, it was a mistake by a newbie. I am looking forward to your advice. Ashtul (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani's edit on Kiryat Netafim changed a sentence which was there since the page inception when NO sources were given. To say it is WP:OR is a joke. Ashtul (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're topic banned, and you'd need to ask HJ Mitchell for any needed clarification. You can appeal the topic ban per the directions he gave you if you disagree with it.  Sandstein  14:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Ashtul (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)