Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 1 March 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I await input by other admins before deciding how to proceed. If I determine that a request for clarification is required, I will make it. In the interim, please do not continue the current dispute in any venue before the request for arbitration enforcement is resolved. Please also link to the previous request for clarification that you refer to.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have, as promised, filed the request for clarification. I will accept your notice here as sufficient to prohibit me from further comment, outside of ArbComm pages, on this case, pending resolution of the AE request. I've already done what was needed, I believe, but one question: may I participate in discussions or editing of TurnKey Linux at the article or Talk page, pursuing article content issues, not behavioral discussion? I assure you that minimum disruption is my goal, always, consistent with the necessities of policy. I will provide you with links as requested, later.

• Please note that the request for clarification names you as a party, but this is not a challenge of any action you have taken, and the request is intended purely for clarification, for your guidance and mine. Thanks for your patience. --Abd (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no authority to issue injunctions but ask you to not do anything at all that is remotely related to the present dispute, including engaging in content discussions, until the AE request is resolved.  Sandstein  21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you have the authority to block me for violation of a sanction, you have the authority to, in lieu of block, specifically prohibit me from specified behavior that you define as violating the sanction. You have done this, and you have clarified that this includes (related) content discussions. That's an "injunction" as I was using the term. Arbitration enforcement requires this kind of discretionary sanction, I assume and have seen. I will be careful.

I do understand, however, that I may comment on ArbComm pages: the AE request and the RfAr/Clarification filed. And thanks for supporting that request. --Abd (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Purim!

Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Requesting your assistance

From the Portal:Feminism when you click on the WikiProject Gender Studies you are taken to WP:General sanctions. Looking through the history of the page, it seems that you recently changed a redirect that is causing this to happen.

Given that March is National Women's History Month in the United States (maybe other places, too??), and International Women's Day is March 8th, I would like for us to make a special effort now to be welcoming to females and other people interested in articles related to women in hope that we could recruit them as editors. For that reason, I would appreciate your help in sorting this out and see what other places it could be problem from the change you made. regards, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the redirect WP:GS to point to WP:General sanctions instead of to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gender Studies. I've fixed the now-wrong links in the most prominent places, Portal:Feminism/Projects, Portal:Men's rights/Projects, Template:User WikiProject Gender Studies and Template:WikiProject Gender Studies Invitation. Thanks for the notification.  Sandstein  19:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for promptly looking into this, and I appreciate you making those changes. :-) regards, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Zachary Jaydon or Jaydon Paull

My name is Jaydon Paull and I live in Colorado. I am 27, married with two kids. I am not an actor, singer or a child TV star and have no talents as a musician, yet I am questioned constantly about being a Zachary Jaydon and have even almost lost an employment opportunity because of information on this site and others linking me to someone with the same or similar name. I am unsure about how all of this works, but can the discussion pages be deleted now that this persons page has been removed? When you search my name in google, this "Article For Deletion" page comes up; 3 of them actually. From what I understand, the "Salt" part of the verdict makes it impossible for the page in question to be recreated, so are those pages still relevant or necessary years later? It's causing me some serious problems. Thank you for understanding. I'm sorry I don't understand how to sign my comments here. It took me forever to figure out how to get this far in talking to you. I'm still confused on if these two are one person or two, imaginary or real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.60 (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw this, and felt compelled to comment. Zachary Jaydon is also known as "Jaydon D. Paull". If you google for Jaydon Paull, the article for deletion page does not come up. I believe it is noindexed automatically, anyway. If you google for Zachary Jaydon, the deletion pages from Simple Misplaced Pages do come up, but ours do not. Most of what comes up in either search are the numerous fraudulent resumes and biographies that Zachary Jaydon has put up. Once we salted his pages, he got into the habit of using other wikis to spread the word. I've put his page up for deletion at Simple twice. He created them in places as strange as a a wiki devoted to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. He has created his own damn Wikia, devoted to spamming himself. If the anon is real, I feel for him, because having the same name as an aggressively spamming con-man can't be much fun. Even so, I can't see an advantage to even courtesy blanking, much less deletion, because the pages from English Wiki aren't coming up on Google.—Kww(talk) 05:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The coincidence of the timing of this request and this little shitstorm also makes me a bit suspicious.—Kww(talk) 05:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaydon Paull, I do not see any Misplaced Pages results in the top Google page for that name or for "Zachary Jaydon". It's unclear what you expect me to do and why. Please tell me what specific page you are talking about and what you want me to do with it.  Sandstein  19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are three links of the pages I'd like removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon_(3rd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Jaydon

I am still confused on the correlation between these two people and it's frustrating to share an even partial name with this person/people. There are other sites on the Internet that reference the arguments here and it has been spread around my office, at one point almost costing me my job. I've been harassed by coworkers and my wife has been questioned about her husbands integrity because of things online about someone unrelated. All of the "facts" seem to link back to this years old discussion on Zachary Jaydon/Jaydon Paull and to be honest, from reading it I can't tell if they are one or to people real or created by someone or several someones. All I know is that if the outcome of the debate/argument etc has been decided, can the pages be removed to save me the hassle of having my name dragged through the murk? It's not encyclopedic in any way and seems to serve no constructive purpose at this point. I apologize for my earlier confusion about google. It was another wikipedia site. I thought hey were all the same. That one links to this one though and then other sites are pulling information from here as well. This seems to be the root of the problem. Thanks for understanding. Maybe I'm just being selfish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.75 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Shitstorm

To be honest, I don't care about the other subject except that he causes me annoyance and frustration. The shitstorm on whoever this is has been a thorn in my side for several years. If I knew how to use this stuff better, I'd have already asked for it all to be removed. I hadn't discovered that page until today after your link and I've sent a letter to them too but I doubt it will get anywhere. I still don't see the point of the wikipedia pages. People are referencing them and it seems to be the root of the problem most of the time with other websites posting information. I don't know that it is ir isn't accurate but it seems out of place on an encyclopedia website. According to my reading wikipedia doesn't think they should have a page here but keeps this log anyway. I'm writing to all of them, but I don't know how to use wikipedia and it takes me a long time to find stuff figure out who wrote it and how to even ask for the removal. Is there a more formal way to request that the pages be deleted? I'm going to assume the "courtesy blanking" kww was talking about won't happen? Thanks for getting back to me soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.76 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this all about? Which page(s) do you refer to (please provide links) and why do you want them to be deleted?  Sandstein  19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Trusilver has reversed your block on Brews ohare. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed, thanks.  Sandstein  19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Repent! Repent!

I am quite disgusted by your statement here that you have a policy of issuing indefinite blocks to make contributors repent and grovel for the allmighty. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Groveling or repenting is not desired. But I take seriously our policy that blocks should be preventative, not punitive. A preventative block is one that lasts as long as it is needed to prevent disruption. We can't usually know in advance how long this is. That's the problem with blocks of definite duration. So the better approach is to block indefinitely but unblock immediately as soon as we are convinced that the disruption will not resume.  Sandstein  19:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, I now looked at you actual log of blocking measures. There are not that many indefinites, and the indefinite blocks that you issued are obviously vandals. But what you wrote in the quote that I linked to sounded rather extreme. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd

No offense, but I think your close of my arbitration enforcement request concerning User:Abd was premature. I was initially satisfied by the outcome and actually believed he had agreed "to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained in an unambiguous and convincing manner" but it wasn't even half an hour after you'd acknowledged it that he'd started off a new thread on his talk page directly disputing it, and kicked off a dispute with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for good measure. And that's not all...

What's the next step - can this be reviewed or do I need to start another separate arbitration proceeding? -- samj _in 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to make a new request if you believe there are continued problems. I can't immediately see a violation in these edits though. Abd is not required to agree with the restriction or its interpretation, he just has to obey it. Maybe if you leave this be for a while it will die down.  Sandstein  21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the close as well. Abd is harassing the very administrator who clarified the restriction for him - see the diffs I posted on the AE page. I don't think this is acceptable, and I don't think this is a separate issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) Well, it is a separate issue insofar as harrassing administrators (if that's what it is) is not a violation of the remedy that prohibits commenting on the disputes between others. It may be grounds for a normal block for disruptive wikilawyering, if it is disruptive, but it's not an AE matter. Of course my closure of the AE request does not prevent you, as an administrator, to take on your own any arbitration enforcement or other action that you believe is required, if you are uninvolved in the dispute between Abd and Fut.Perf.  Sandstein  22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this is a standard Abd ploy. If a new request is opened it would be a "dispute" between Abd and the admin who correctly enforced his restriction. Abd would then argue that he is involved and unable to enforce the restrictions against him. We've seen this before. Verbal chat 22:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Any such arguments should simply be ignored and the sanction applied nonetheless.  Sandstein  22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Maybe it is a sign of how far down the tubes Misplaced Pages has gone, but I'm quite grateful for your sanity in handling this, even if I disagree with your interpretation of the sanction. I accepted you as neutral without actually investigating your history, and even though you had already written a preliminary result with which I disagreed, because you actually waited and asked for advice from others. That's a strong sign of neutrality. I will ask you if I have any problems interpreting the sanction pending ArbComm clarification. If that becomes excessive, you can let me know. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My very strong recommendation to you is that you stop discussing all matters related to arbitration or sanctions for the next month or so and go edit some articles instead. I have a feeling that this will otherwise not end well.  Sandstein  22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)