Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:44, 12 April 2015 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/April, User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/March) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

An impertinent question...

...which you should feel free to ignore if you wish: Was there a particular reason you stopped editing at AE? I've noticed that the process there is much slower than it was, with cases languishing for considerable periods of time, and I'm tempted to correlate that with your not being around to move things along. I'd like to suggest that, if possible, you return to editing there if you can -- I think it would be a very useful thing. BMK (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, no problem. I stopped editing at AE for the moment because it felt increasingly exhausting and time-consuming, perhaps also as a result of my impression of increasing bureaucratic requirements and increasing expectations by some of discussion and consensus instead of individual admin actions. As a consequence I decided to focus my Misplaced Pages editing on topic areas that, to me, feel more fulfilling. I may in the future return to contributing at AE, but at the moment I don't plan on it. Regards,  Sandstein  09:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I too believe that you should come back to it. IMO you are/were the best admin at AE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein:I can certainly understand what you're saying. Still, I hope you'll be able to go back to AE at some point, where I (for one) very much appreciated your contribution. BMK (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate your feedback. Regards,  Sandstein  10:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. Your absence from AE is noted. WP:AE works better when more admins are participating. In my opinion there is no need to wait for consensus before taking action in blatant cases. Sometimes people may wait for consensus just because they don't feel strongly enough to act on their own. That's not a bar to someone else going ahead. The appeal process ought to be sufficient to limit anything that goes too far. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that's how it ought to work in theory, but my experiences over several years indicate that AE, like all of our disciplinary processes, in practice does often not work effectively (or not without inordinate effort) when applied to ill-behaved but popular users, and I profoundly dislike systems with rules that can't be enforced equally. It's also, in the most recent incarnation of discretionary sanctions, bureaucratic overkill when applied to many of the rest of AE's clientele, i.e., run-of-the-mill POV-pusher trolls with no friends. So right now I don't feel it's worth investing my free time in, but the experience of others may differ - and besides, no process ought to depend on a few individuals.  Sandstein  17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

An AE question

Question is that when an editor is appealing the topic ban on his own user-talk page, because it has been actively observed by the enforcing admin, the same editor is allowed to talk about the content of the article in those particular appeal messages that fall under the enforced topic ban? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view, only to the extent that it is necessary for the purpose of the appeal. That is, if you are banned from X, you may say in your statement of appeal that "I am an expert about X and therefore should be allowed to edit about it", but not "unban me now, and by the way, X is a vile abomination that needs to be eradicated from Misplaced Pages!". See generally WP:BANEX.  Sandstein  08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IP vandals

86.168.193.197 who you recently blocked is the same as 86.159.94.13 (blocked for a month) and 86.168.194.64 (sitting in the AIV queue for the last three hours with no action). I have no idea why they keep vandalizing those same articles or what to do about it to stop them. Helpsome (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Third one now also blocked. Perhaps somebody with a mental or similar disorder and a knowledge of how to IP-hop, there are apparently a few WP:LTA cases of this sort. Nothing to do but report and block.  Sandstein  19:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you

		Thanks
		Hi Sandstein, you recently closed a couple of afds with no consensus - and . Just a word of thanks for all the work that you administrators do for the wikiverse Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brogrammer

I was wondering what your rationale was behind the no consensus closure on Brogrammer. By my count there were 10 Delete, 8 keep, 1 weak keep, and 8 open to a merge possibility. I could see not counting 1 of the deletes as it was by an IP address, and I wouldn't count the weak keep. So that would be 9 delete, 8 keep. I thought the delete side cited a lot more guidelines/policy and had better arguments (though I can't really judge that without bias as I was the nominator and agreed with that side). Anyhow, I was just curious if you had any further thoughts/reasoning on the closure as you didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. —Godsy_CONT) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. It's pretty clear that there's no consensus numerically, so I need to check whether one side's argument is clearly more convincing in terms of policies and guidelines. I don't think that's the case. This is a typical case of a topic that has acquired a catchy moniker but is also part of a larger issue already covered by other articles. In these cases, it's really a matter of editorial judgment whether we cover it separately or in the context of another article, and whether this word is just a dictionary definition or a cultural topic going beyond that. That's not something that can be decided by applying policy in black-and-white manner. As it is, views are about equally divided, with valid arguments made on both sides, and I can't find a consensus to delete or merge, so the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Contravention of topic ban by Nado158

G'day Sandstein, I haven't had much to do with Nado158, but when I checked his user talk page history I noticed an ARBMAC topic ban on anything to do with Serbia. He just removed mention of the Chetniks that were involved in the Kozara Offensive alongside Axis troops, here, with an edit summary "No Chetniks". This is factually incorrect, the involvement of the Chetniks led by Rade Radic in this offensive is comprehensively documented in the academic literature. As far as I am concerned, Chetniks (being almost all Serbs) would be included in Nado158's ban. Over to you though to take whatever action you see fit, as the banning admin. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)