Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:37, 20 September 2009

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.

Jingiby

Hello from me Sandstein. I would lik to ask whether this wil remain unsolved? Calling a user with nationalistic names, insults and "clowns" counts at least block. I am very insulted by him and I want a decision, hopefully a right one. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Patience, please. An admin will attend to it eventually, if the matter is found to be actionable.  Sandstein  20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein rocks my socks

(Caveat: I am writing this purely as an individual normal editor.) Misplaced Pages:Discretionary sanctions. You apply KISS and cut the Gordian knot by extending a tried and true method while keeping the matter of logging and appeals extremely simple and straightforward. Bless your heart. Vassyana (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I particularly appreciate this because you, with an arbitrator's experience, probably know better than many others what will work, and what won't, in the field of dispute resolution and rules enforcement.  Sandstein  19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting in the work on the DS policy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing editing restrictions on ANI

It's not hard to get people to agree with those in clear cut cases, e.g. (VG there it's me, I've renamed the account so searching for my name on google doesn't return my wiki user page as 1st hit, but I've preserved my full edit history). I agree that in tag team cases, getting consensus on ANI can be harder, but those cases usually end up before the ArbCom sooner or later because blocks can be contested on ANI as well, and a single admin on the "right" side can undo them, etc. Pcap ping 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2009 Bilderberg Meeting

Lecochonbleu (talk · contribs) created a talk page for this deleted article asking about your very funny comment when closing it. I deleted that and explained that we couldn't have a talk page for a deleted article. The editor then replied on my talk page (and although he's given warnings to people he's pretty confused) and then edited the AfD itself - I'd suggested that he ask you what he'd asked on the now deleted talk page, but again he presumably misunderstood so asked on the AfD. Maybe you could respond to him so we can hopefully end this.Thanks Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  Sandstein  07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me...

...that you are catching a bit of crap on the 'boards just at the moment. I consider that to mean that you are adminning effectively. I may, of course, be wrong - but when do admins ever get told they are doing right? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! You might be on to something there.  Sandstein  14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Nathan 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

user:scuro

As per the arb comm decision Scuro was to have either have found a mentor at this point or have had one appointed. Any possibility of moving forwards on this? ThanksDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an arbitrator or otherwise involved in the case, so I would not know, really. Sorry. I suppose such a question could be asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee or Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests.  Sandstein  04:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at AfD

Thank you for this remark. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding AfD deletion

Dear administrator Sandstein, I am addressing you this way to state that I respectfully disagree with your decision on deleting article Kresimir Chris Kunej. I know bad faith nomination accusations are not fun, but I don't know if you even considered my statements. The fact does stand that editors Drmies (nominator for deletion), Bongomatic (delete voter) and ChildofMidnight are on very good terms. Their Talk pages are full of mutual playful friendly comments, and they award each other medals on a regular basis. They even refer to each other as "Doc", indicating private level acquaintance with each other. User ChildofMidnight page also includes the following: "This user votes Delete regularly for the Article Deletion Squadron. Please join us! An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed and poorly cited, it should also be deleted because we'd rather not fix it. There may be sources out there, somewhere, but there are more useful ways to spend our time. Like deleting articles." What is Misplaced Pages if certain groups can band together and influence it to their desires? It is the duty of administrators to keep that kind of behavior in check.

Regardless, your explanation of deletion was "the author's discourses are much too long to usefully consider in their entirety, and Judo112's keep comment is weakly argued, whereas Drmies's review of the sources, in fine, is persuasive". Do you realize you stated that because keep arguments are too long I do not wish to consider them? This does not seem fair to me. In editor Drmies final comment where he "reviewed the sources", he completely omitted mentioning two newspaper sources in addition to two TV shows, and his comment about sources showing "paid dues to professional organisations" is plain wrong. A source showing membership in an APPOINTED national committee which created profession standards directly shows significant impact. No one disputed WP:PROF criteria that was met. Also, I do not see how you reached a consensus here. You disquilified my discussion because it was too long, omitted editor AMorePerfectOnion's "weak keep" vote, and another editor was made to abstain from voting due to canvassing accusations. Would you kindly take a second look and maybe reconsider the deletion?Turqoise127 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but it does not make me alter my closure. Any association between people arguing "keep" has no impact on the validity of their arguments unless they are WP:CANVASSING each other, of which I see no evidence. Moreover, I do find it fair that unpaid volunteer administrators cannot be reasonably expected to thoroughly evaluate and address (I did read everything you wrote) novel-length arguments. As to Drmies' closing comment, there is no point in re-arguing the merits of the AfD here, which is what any discussion of the actual sources here would entail. Finally, as regards consensus, per WP:DGFA, administrators must determine consensus by evaluating the strength of the arguments expressed in the closure, because deletion discussions are not votes. If you want to appeal my closure, there are instructions for doing so at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kresimir Chris Kunej

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kresimir Chris Kunej. 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. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Sandstein, seems that a mediation process was opened on the Ukrainian-Polish relationships here: . I see from the comments there that Piotrus thinks that I will be banned (!?) if i participate. My understanding is that I am of course allowed to participate in the mediation which will help improve the general situation and understanding between editors. I just wanted to ask if my understanding is correct and to give me a formal "go ahead" to enter mediation. Loosmark (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I am excepting from your topic ban all edits required to participate in official mediation proceedings about the topic, subject of course to the condition that you observe all Misplaced Pages norms of conduct in such proceedings.  Sandstein  20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also thank you Sandstein. This was very fair from your part. All the best.--Jacurek (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For you immediate attention . Giano (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I have asked for mediation and the case hasn't been closed yet. I'm asking for the right to present my position there. Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The case has not moved forward since 27 August 2009, and nobody has accepted your request for mediation. I will only lift your topic ban for the purpose of participating in mediation if there is a likelihood of substantial mediation actually taking place.  Sandstein  11:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nareg510

I have unblocked Nareg510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He says he's through editwarring, and I'd like to give him a chance to try again. Fred Talk 00:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, ok, but you are aware that this is Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a banned sockpuppeteer? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask Glen (talk · contribs), the admin who banned the sockmaster account, and unblock that account? And possibly ask for community consensus first, because this is a longtime disruption issue?  Sandstein  06:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Nareg510 --John Vandenberg 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at AE: I don't think that ethnic attacks like this should be tolerated in wiki: Thanks. Grandmaster 07:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the topic bans

I am still shocked that this is seriously considered, but could you considered commenting on this? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not really in a position to comment on this, because I am not privy to the evidence on which the proposed topic ban is based. If the Committee does adopt such a wide topic ban, I expect them to have good reasons for it.  Sandstein  06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Milarepa, Pango Chorten, Gyantse .JPG

Hi! Yes, it does seem a bit strange at first that he has his left hand up - the usual portrayal is with the right hand to his right ear. Anyway, I had a look through my old photos tonight and all the other ones that I can check from that roll seem to be correctly orientated, so I assume this one is too. My wife says she remembers remarking on the unusual portrayal at the time - but this was many yearsa ago now and I must admit I cannot remember.

I have also been looking through numerous other portrayals of Milarepa in my library and on the internet tonight and have so far only found two others portraying him with his left hand up. They may be rare, but at least they do seem to exist. These two images may be accessed at: http://www.kagyu-asia.com/lineage/milarepa_life/milarepa_m1_2.jpg and http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/images/milarepa.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/links.htm&usg=__reCXBXc9bn3vvhLoQb4ZOUc-z8U=&h=133&w=131&sz=7&hl=en&start=441&sig2=cUKZpCowZwfiKcA67dlyFQ&um=1&tbnid=eGRZ2TLUXsdMrM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmilarepa%2Bimages%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D432%26um%3D1&ei=e7-0SpT9FIqKtAP2t_HRDA

I think it is a bit much to suggest it is an insult to show him with his hand up to his left ear (it certainly was not deliberate on my part and I doubt, from what I have read of Milarepa, that he would have been offended) and, aside from returning to Gyantse to check, I don't really know what to do. If I can contact a friend of mine who is a very well-known Tibetan painter, I will ask him his opinion about the iconographic implications (if any). Hope this is of some help. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh

Sandstein, I object to your close on this as I would like to see another checkuser confirm with certainty that this was Nickhh. It is not clear why this check was run in the first place, and considering that Nickhh denies it was him, as well as that the ip also shows random vandalism, there should be more evaluation than from just one person. The discussion should be reopened for another checkuser to review, at least. Mackan79 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am reopening the thread, so as to allow another checkuser to evaluate the evidence. Meanwhile, Nickhh can appeal his block through the usual channels.  Sandstein  17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you may have seen I just commented to Brandon asking if he would clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewed this again, and appreciate your leaving it open while I was away. Seeing Brandon's explanation and Deskana's confirmation, that's good enough for me. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight

I'm inclined to honor his unblock request. Our current President is going to be mentioned in hundreds of articles. When one editor decides to add his name to an article, it does not automatically make it Obama-related. Should Kanye West be off limits as well because the President referred to him as a 'jackass?' Where are you going to draw the line here? Besides, the length of the block seems vindictive. Law _{type! snype?} 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment. I think however you were acting in good faith as well. I do not know if you have a prior history with COM however this raises a few issues that need to be cleared up to avoid a repeat of the preceding. Would an Obama block extend to all politics? For example Obama is heavily involved with health care. Arbcom and whoever should confer to the limits of the restrictions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with both your assertion, Law, and with your out of process unblock (and Obama is not my president; I'm European). The topic ban covers "Obama-related articles ... broadly construed", my emphasis, and this organization seems to relate to Obama in a politically significant way. I also do not know what you mean by "vindictive", as I do not know what I am supposed to be vengeful about against ChildofMidnight. (Hell in a Bucket, I am not aware of any prior history with ChildofMidnight, though it is possible - I didn't check - that I sanctioned him previously for something or other.)

Law, I ask you to please reinstate the block of ChildofMidnight (at the maximum permitted length of a week, as correctly pointed out by Evil Saltine), or I will request arbitration with respect to your interference with the enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions.  Sandstein  06:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully ask for arbitration. I stand by my action, and will be fully accountable for it. There are about seven different paths you could have taken. You could have gone to CoM directly, and discussed the merits of him editing his article. You could have called in a third opinion. You could have gone to the committee which set the topic ban, and discussed whether or not ACORN was an Obama-related article. If so, you could have simply asked CoM to stop. Instead your actions indicate that there was a dire need to give him a template and a thirty-day vacation. I believe you applied this block as arbitrarily as you did the block length. If it is so important to you that CoM spend a week thinking about his behavior, you will simply have to make good on your promise to take me to ArbCom for interference. I'm an adult and I won't take it personally. Law _{type! snype?} 06:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Law, what you say makes some sense, but it needs to be put in the context of Arbitration enforcement. It is a difficult area to begin with, and generally speaking these enforcement doctrines are created because of extensive and long reaching problems. This is designed to lower the threshold and tolerances given to users. At the very least, it is best if you announce these intentions on the relevant arbitration enforcement threads.--Tznkai (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been nice to announce the intention to block, rather than my intention to unblock? At least that way it wouldn't have resulted in a block that exceeds what is policy. Law _{type! snype?} 06:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement blocks, more so than blocks in general, do not normally require prior consensus or discussion, because the merits of the case have already been through arbitration. As to the block length error, I'm sorry about that and would of course have corrected it had I been given the opportunity.  Sandstein  06:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But I don't see the problem with discussion. In fact, I think only AC can decide if this is truly a breach of the ban. We clearly disagree with how it is applied, which often happens with a 'broad' interpretation. I know the history of ACORN (we are having serious problems here in California), and it was created nearly 40 years before Obama was in office. While that is not the greatest rationale, it does explain why I think that the US President will be involved in many aspects, such as the Kanye incident, but that doesn't necessarily mean the ban was meant to prevent CoM from editing all articles, even if they are tangents. Law _{type! snype?} 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is incumbent upon administrators enforce arbitral decisions, which means that they have to decide whether an edit constitutes a violation or not, and as I said, in an arbitration enforcement context the time for discussion is usually long over. Whether or not my block was correct, though, you have no excuse for unilaterally undoing what was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action. Please reinstate the block at once and seek community consensus at AE or ANI about whether or not it was correct; if consensus does not support a block of one week, I will of course lift it.  Sandstein  06:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Law, I think the evidence will show that Sandstein has been nothing but tireless in working AE to the best of his ability and fairness. Any criticism of him, however fair or unfair should be within that context. Likewise, Sandstein, we get very little out of insisting anything out of our fellow volunteer admins to do, or undo anything, and focusing on procedure at this point is impractical.

In the case on point, procedurally, Sandstein is absolutely correct. It is the nature of arbitration enforcement that administrators are left to figure out for themselves what arbcom meant, the thresholds are low, and the decisions can be very quick. However, I think there is a legitimate argument that ACORN, while obviously in the same political football field, is not sufficiently within the logical reach of Obama related articles to have constituted fair warning for CoM. Is there somewhere we can come to an agreement?--Tznkai (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot block an editor when there is no certainty that he did anything wrong. It sends a poor message to him. And I do have an excuse - I used my tools to honor an unblock request. This idea that he should be blocked until a decision is made is foreign to me. It is the presumption of guilt, as well as prevention from allowing him to participate in an obviously impending ANI request. Law _{type! snype?} 07:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM has had plenty of poor behavior, as you yourself have noted, so this isn't an issue of has CoM done something wrong. Editing a political football like ACORN by including a White House statement, and then posting a lengthy screed instead of a simple common sense defense when called out on it, all the while under a topic ban after an ugly arbitration case is quite frankly, self destructive. I am far more interested, and hope the two of you are equally interested, in practical questions of effectiveness, and general questions of fairness.

Again, all of these discussions can take place, and should have taken place, on AE. Aside from the basic fairness and politeness involved to your fellow administrators, it is way more useful to have the discussion where many eyes are likley watching. Furthermore, unblocking without discussing at some length the blocking admin tends to lead to drama, especially when arbitration enforcement is involved. Of course, the administrator so affronted shouldn't really get all that worked up about it either - its just a damned website, and its just a block.

Is there anyway I can get people to agree in principle that discussing such blocks amicably on AE would have been better?--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, especially that any discussion about the propriety of my action should have taken place at AE. Because it has not, though, I have now requested arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight.  Sandstein  07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I just fixed my rather stupid error above, so let me reiterate more clearly, lets not get worked up over something this trivial.--Tznkai (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel particularly worked up, but I would like to find out whether it is worth spending any more of my time at AE. That would not be the case if the ArbCom agrees that administrative actions taken in the enforcement of its decisions can be undone on a whim.  Sandstein  07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They obviously can be. Whether they should is an entirely different discussion, and whether someone should go through arbitration to find out is still another separate gigantic can of worms. Regardless of whether you feel worked up or not, arbitration is the Misplaced Pages bench mark for making a big deal out of something. Let me make it easier on you, please. Stop responding to AE. Let others take care of it - or maybe they won't. Either way, it isn't your job.--Tznkai (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)