This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 5 May 2009 (→Vintagekits unblocked: Civility cop and rudeness.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:06, 5 May 2009 by Bishonen (talk | contribs) (→Vintagekits unblocked: Civility cop and rudeness.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Commons picture.
Hello,
Just wondering if you can delete an image I uploaded to Misplaced Pages Commons. It is found here. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Sandstein 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned at request for arbitration
Hi there. I'm letting you know that I've mentioned you in a statement I made at a request for arbitration. See here. It relates to a 6-month hardblock you did of an IP address. Would you be able to comment there? What I wanted to know was how you determined whether it was a correct autoblock or not? Is that just a technical matter, or do you look further into the block that caused the autoblock? Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me. I'll leave a comment. Sandstein 05:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. The autoblock has come up again in the statement made by Jediknight. Could you opine on whether it is a plausible scenario? What was said (in part) was: "Noticing the 'block' on my logon and not having access to my system (which is a work one). I attempted to logon from his computer to find out exactly what the 'block' meant. This resulted in his IP being used to log into my jediknight95758 account and resulted in his IP being blocked also." I'm currently awaiting technical information before deciding whether to accept that explanation or not. Presumably the person who left the autoblock template would then be this other person. I'm also wondering how common that sort of situation is. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge of Transmeta microprocessors to Transmeta
Hello! You merged Transmeta Crusoe and Efficeon to Transmeta . 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)
Kitten
62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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).
- 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)
- 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. Misplaced Pages 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).
- 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)
- 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)
- Please consider encouraging these "fundamental necessities" by modelling them rather than by brute force (=blocks); that's policy, too. 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).
- 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)
- 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).
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 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)