Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:19, 14 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.

DYK for Forensics in antiquity

On September 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Forensics in antiquity, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Go away

Your harrassment of Russavia in blatant violation of Arbcom ruling (you are just as involved in the topic as he is) is a disgrace. Go away. You don't belong to here - join the Navy. NVO (talk)

How am I involved in what?  Sandstein  16:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A solution

Sandstein, the latest broadening of the ban to entail ALL topics relating to Russia is unacceptable. It is not only myself who think this, but also User:Ezhiki and User:Alex Bakharev (both fellow admins of yours), and other editors have also expressed their disagreeance with the ban and the way it has been handled. I posted a compromise solution to what is now going to be a problem here. You mentioned that the initial banning had support at WP:AN/I. There were 3 admins who believed the banning was warranted, however, I am certain that they would not support the way it has been handled. This is already evident by those who have posted on the talk page. As I have mentioned part of the blame for this drama lays with me, and part belongs to you. I feel that answers to my questions have been answered in such a way that it makes it nearly impossible for one to ascertain exactly what I am or aren't able to do on this project. I take severe issue with your generalisation of my editing as being disruptive -- this generalisation was reinforced by your banning me from ALL Russia articles, when it is evident to anyone who looks at just some of my work here on WP, that this is not the case. If one says that there was consensus on AN/I for the banning, one would also have to say that there is now consensus that the way the ban has been handled is nothing short of a screw-up. You may be tired, but so am I...do you really think I want this wikidrama? As I have posted at the above link, you believe that my disruption is based around the Baltic states, so perhaps a solution that is easy to manage, given that you have not explained just what entails "history", and which will keep me away from those articles in which you believe I am a problem, is to amend the banning to only include articles which relate to the history of the Soviet Union and Russia in relation to the Baltic States. It makes absolutely zero sense to ban me from articles such as say Aeroflot, when there is no evidence of disruption in this area. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of other editors (including 2 fellow admins). I am suggesting a fair and equitable solution, which gives both you and myself a way out to the impasse that we are now at, whilst also making it perfectly clear in my mind, and the mind of other editors (including those who just wait for me to break ban to report me). The only other choice that I have is to take it to WP:AN/I, and I don't think either you or myself need the extra drama - there should be no "bullshit" on WP, and I want to get rid of it as much as you, but this, frankly, is bullshit of the extreme, and we should be ridding the project of it, not exaggerating it further. The ball is now in your court. --Russavia 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this proposal is that you have not shown any sign of seriously recognizing the cause of your ban, i.e., your extremely disruptive conduct. I considered indefinitely blocking you straightaway for this "I'll fight you to the death", but settled on a topic ban as a milder option, although I may yet change my mind if the topic ban approach proves to be insufficient. (Please don't reply with "but User:X has done even worse things" - even if others are also disruptive, that has nothing to do with your disruption, and does not justify it.) Moreover, your block log indicates a history of disruption across several Russia-related topics. Indeed, many of the edits you made after your unblock were reverts, which is not a good sign at all. This means that any effective topic ban must be wide enough to cover all topic areas in which further disruptive conduct by you can be reasonably expected given your past history. The prevention of further serious disruption outweighs, in my opinion, the loss of any productive contributions that you might make in this topic area. If you disagree, you are free to appeal my sanction, but note that per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, the proper forum for such an appeal would be WP:AE. My advice, however, would be to stop feeling sorry for yourself and obey the topic ban. If you show that you can edit in other areas without disruption for an significant length of time, I may be amenable to reducing the scope of the restriction.  Sandstein  17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You leave me with no choice but to take this to WP:AN/I, I will not be doing it at WP:AE, as this is now also about your behaviour as an admin. Also, my revert to Alexander Litvinenko was due to this. Apart from the massive removal of NPOV sourced material from the article (of which there is a long history) and reinsertion of material which fails verification, there is also the matter of the constant reinsertion of WP:LINKVIO by said editor. See points No 11 & 12. Funnily enough this is the same article that the accusations of Vladimir Putin being a paedophile were made (you know, the ones you said I wasn't able to report, then said I was, then said I wasn't, and then said I was), and it is was my NPOV'ing the accusations and reverting the reinsertion of the very poorly sourced WP:BLP violations that led to me being blocked for WP:3RR, whilst said editor got nothing. You see, there are reasons for many actions on WP. As to you saying that I don't recognise the cause of the ban, I recognise it, and I cop it on the chin...I said that a few times if you care to read anything. But what I did not cop, and still not cop, is not knowing what articles I can or can't edit. See you at WP:AN/I. --Russavia 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, Russavia will have all the chances to "recognize the cause of his ban" during the following six months while the ban is in effect. The whole purpose of the ban is to show a user that some of his/her behavior is unacceptable. By now, however, the ban itself is not as much of a problem as your handling of it. Extending the coverage of the ban is solely your idea (based on pretty weak premises, I might add)—you cannot support it by referring to the initial AN/I banning discussion because the outcome of that discussion was not what you now claim it to be. The very least that needs to be done is to bring this back to that very same AN/I thread so the new circumstances could be discussed. However, considering that "the new circumstances" basically boil down to your inability to phrase the terms of the ban (be it because you are tired or for some other reasons) and choosing to broaden it instead, I can understand your reluctance to do so. As it has been correctly pointed out, your actions have now been questioned by two admins and several rank and file editors (neither of which can be considered "involved" by the ArbComm judgment definition). As an admin, you should understand that it is the right of any Misplaced Pages editor in good standing to question actions of any admins if such actions are not seen as rational or justified. Please kindly address this inquiry. I, too, am not at all eager to drag the issue of your handling of this situation to AN/I, and I very much doubt that is something you are looking forward to either. Russavia's proposal is a very reasonable one, and it's not like the terms cannot be amended later if they turn out to not be broad enough.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:20, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have already said what needs to be said in this matter.  Sandstein  20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I actually can very well imagine how not fun it is to patrol WP:AE, and I understand perfectly well that's a job that needs to be done if we at all care about the integrity of the project. I also can imagine how doing such a job day after day after day can quickly plant cynical attitude towards anyone and everyone against whom the arbitration decisions are being enforced, and I can understand how hard it is to recognize the signs of that cynical attitude settling in and take proper precautions. With so few admins willing to patrol AE that one cannot take a proper break without risking a backlog building up, such cynicism may even be something that we need to learn to live with; at least until more volunteers show up. What I don't understand, however, is your "I am right, I said so, so I can't be bothered to provide any explanations" attitude. It's one thing to ignore Russavia's requests—from your point of view he is probably merely a wikicriminal who committed something for which restrictions were imposed upon him—but it is another matter entirely when no less than five other (uninvolved!) people ask you to explain just what it was exactly that you were trying to do. As much as I appreciate you devoting time to patrolling AE, in your particular situation it might be prudent to consider taking an extended break from this task, as in my opinion it affects both your judgment and your actions. Not everyone who had sanctions imposed by the ArbComm deserves to be treated like trash, and certainly not Russavia, who in his relatively short tenure here did more for the project overall than I did in my five and a half years of being a Wikipedian.

We should never forget that our primary task is not to re-educate users on the virtues of being good citizens; it is to build an encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. Aberrant behavior should be prevented and punished only to the extent of its interfering with our primary goal. Restraining a rambunctious user so others could edit in peace is one thing; restraining him "just in case" or because you one doesn't like his attitude in general in another matter entirely. As admins, we are expected to eat more flak than regular editors; if one doesn't like it, one can always step down.

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to, by the way. Thanks for reading, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:16, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

An interim solution

Sandstein, in order to reduce the impact of the topic ban on Russavia, and the urgency of the appeals, could we allow him to continue working on the articles that are currently in his userspace. Once delivered into mainspace, any topic ban imposed would apply. John Vandenberg 05:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is an ongoing appeal against the sanction (even though made in the wrong forum, and therefore probably ineffective), I would prefer to wait until it is concluded one way or another before modifying the sanction in any way, to prevent additional confusion and wikilawyering about the scope of the ban.  Sandstein  05:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably should know this, but ... where is the ongoing appeal? John Vandenberg 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (p.s. I am commenting here without my arb hat on; sorry I didnt clarify that before)

At WP:ANI#Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein. I just wrote there that "I am tired of this drama and propose the following: If any uninvolved administrator (i.e., nobody involved in Eastern Europe content disputes) believes that any other sanction against Russavia would be more appropriate and workable in lieu of the current broad Russia/Soviet topic ban, I do not object to them imposing that other sanction instead, with the understanding that they would be then responsible for any enforcement and fallout management."  Sandstein  03:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

the topic ban

i find your decision completely ridiculous and i'm politely asking you to instruct me where can i appeal it. thank you. Loosmark (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are directions for an appeal at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  08:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why on earth is Sandstein's overbearing behaviour being so tolerated, just ignore and overule. Being an Admin does not confer the right to run the project. Sandstein needs to be reminded of this - very firmly. Giano (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand those directions, please just indicate me the proper page where i can appeal. thank you. Loosmark (talk)

The remedy provides: "Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee." If you do not understand these directions, I cannot help you further.  Sandstein  08:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the same page where the case was discussed yesterday, is that the appropriate page for appeal? Loosmark (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is one possible place for an appeal. If you want to use it, you should start a new section explaining why you disagree with the sanction and what action (such as a lifting of the sanction) you propose. If there is administrator consensus that the sanction should be lifted or modified, another administrator will note this in the case's sanctions log.  Sandstein  08:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of True Family

An article that you have been involved in editing, True Family, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/True Family. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hedi Enghelberg

I am Hedi Enghelberg and I want to understand your statement about the article: Hedi Enghelberg how do you know me and my work?

present your creditials in the literrary world.
you have any academic or university diplomas
you have any published books or articles?
you have received any literary award?
you have any pier-reviews of your work?
do you have contributed with your work for this World to be a better place?>

Why you have post my article for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enghelberg (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My credentials are not relevant. What matters are our rules about which people we have an article about; you can read them at WP:BIO. Based on the article you wrote about yourself, you do not appear to meet them. If you think you do, you can explain why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hedi Enghelberg.  Sandstein  15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peau d’Espagne

On September 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peau d’Espagne, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-Vandalism

Aber ich denke dass es ist keine Verschiedenheit. Sind egal. Jingby (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you try that in English? It makes no sense in German.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It still makes no sense to me.  Sandstein  20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987 thread

Hi. Do you happen to know why the Mario1987 thread on AN/I was archived with no final comment and no resolution? I've never seen this happen, and I must say I'm perplexed. Dahn (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently because nobody kept editing it, the bot archived it. I've now resolved it with an ARBMAC warning and a 1 month block for the racist comment; the sources issue was not really clearly established because (I guess) few people here can speak Romanian.  Sandstein  05:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I have to say it's quite inconsistent at the core: Mario himself admitted that the he had manipulated the sources, and it was a pretty clear-cut case, regardless of one's language skills (the Romanian article, which he acknowledged to have copied, simply did not have any citations, yet his article did); in fact, on T:TDYK his assertion is just now taken as proof that the nomination should be withdrawn. I should perhaps add: I am not saying this because I'm looking for a "harsher" penalty; I would have seen more of the point if the sourcing problem to be highlighted, considered and explicitly mentioned in relation to his sanction (whatever that sanction may have been), because that would have increased the chances of him not repeating his acts of prestidigitation. I still hope that, through the discussion and the current block, he learns a lesson he has persistently failed to learn the simpler way, one about the importance of presenting information accurately and honestly. And since his Maramureş xenophobia is getting in the way of civilized interaction, I can only hope he has learned a lesson in that area as well. I also wonder how DYK reviewers are supposed to be AGFing his proposals from now on.

Anyway, thank you for your response. Regards, Dahn (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokerdance

Since you are the admin who declined the unblock reason for the above user, I thought I'd better come to you since the blocking admin seems to be on a break. The above user was banned for a fortnight for failing to live upto a 1RR compromise. However, I belive that the user is escaping the block through socking and created the account User:D.C. Blake. The contributions are totally same and still the disruptive reversions and 3RR's continue alongwith going against consensus, nominating articles and direct attack at users during discussions. An investigation has been initiated at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pokerdance. Would you please check that? --Legolas 11:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do this evening.  Sandstein  14:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

		The Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		Thank you, Sandstein, for the great effort you consistently put into arbitration enforcement. It's a low reward task with a supersized and regular ration of crap, and we owe you for taking it on. Nathan 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate it.  Sandstein  14:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Loosmark

Dear Sandstein, I think Loosmark's wikilawering is getting out of control; we may have to be block him for a short period to stop disruption. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)