Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 4 March 2011

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.

A Question.

Are you the administrator who deals with articles related to communism? Tentontunic (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And I really ought to have been told regarding the sections above? Tentontunic (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why?  Sandstein  23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? If people are pressing for sanctions against me, do you not think I ought to be informed? Tentontunic (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I did not see that the "AE Fifelfoo" section was about you. Yes, you should have been informed by the people who were raising concerns about your conduct.  Sandstein  00:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to remain polite in the articles mentioned, might I ask you, am I being unreasonable? I have decided to remove myself from the mass killings article for a few weeks and shall try to continue to work on improving the communist terrorism article, I would appreciate you looking at it on occasion, should you have the time. Tentontunic (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't easily look at anything that's not linked to. And I'm not particularly interested in both communism and terrorism, so I'm unlikely to be of help in improving the article. Sorry.  Sandstein  00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not expect you to have an interest, in either communism or terrorism. I had hoped given this article is also under the Diguren thing you would be keeping an eye out as it were. No matter, I am sure The Four Deuces RFC straight after an edit protect consensus has no bearing on matters. I know I ought not complain about such, but it is annoying to finally manage an actual edit to an article, then an RFC is underway, another 30 days of arguing, really? To what end. Sorry for rantingm but this is, well, annoying. Tentontunic (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't resolve editing disputes. See WP:DR for how to do that. What we can do is to take certain actions to protect Misplaced Pages (the project, not anyone's opinion of what it should read) against disruption on request. In the WP:DIGWUREN context, such requests should be made at WP:AE but only if you can show convincingly, with diffs, that others violate important Misplaced Pages norms. Unspecific complaints and rants without links, which always annoys me immensely, are a waste of your and my time.  Sandstein  00:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

After a few drinks, who does not like a rant? I did of course not try to annoys you immensely, although I am quite sure I could if I tried, in fact I suspect this is doing the job. Look, I am not going to produce diffs, nor jump through hoops. Did that, you closed it :~) (is that the right face?) Take care and sorry to have been a pain. Tentontunic (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness AE request

What do you mean by this? "not to make wide-ranging (and unnecessary) accusations about others without proof" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your "important note for admins", which is wholly unhelpful, even if it were true, because AE requests are evaluated on the basis on the evidence and not on the basis of who submits the evidence.  Sandstein  00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

The latest comments by JJG has been brought by both Nsaum75 and Mbz1 about 3-4 times before at enforcement, I have replied to them 3-4 times at the enforcement, and now he has copy pasted the exact same accusations one more time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but claims of any sort without diffs to back them up are absolutely worthless. Can you please link, in your statement about the enforcement request, to the place(s) where you already responded to these accusations?  Sandstein  09:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna reply to everything soon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"The other edits, while problematic"

"The other edits, while problematic"

Could you please point out what edits you are referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The older ones you refer to above. Can you please point to the archived AE requests where, as you claim, these have already been posted?  Sandstein  19:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted some diffs at the enforcement. These are also complete cases: (Pantherskin and Chesdovi sections) here: . Ynhockey is also an involved admin who shouldn't have responded where he did. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I was unaware that you were having exchanges with SupremeD outside the AE forum. In any event, please have a look at the last comment I made at AE and carefully look at the bottom paragraph and review the diff (specifically, the bottom part of the exchange). Perhaps you overlooked it. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter some.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the diff and acknowledging what I've been desperately trying to convey to you. As for your second question concerning the remaining part of the edit please see this answer to precisely the same question asked by Slp1--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Community forum" clarification

Sandstein, in the procedural details of the sanctions you imposed at Mass killings under Communist regimes, it says "To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal." Can you please clarify what community forum you meant by that? Also, will you be monitoring the sanctioned article to see how the sanctions are working? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Community forum" means any appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:CCN, or if that fails WP:ANI. If you think a proposal by you has consensus, you should post a request to such a forum for an administrator to evaluate and close the discussion. I've watchlisted the article for the time being and will look at developments to the extent time permits.  Sandstein  20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to get your advise please

Hi Sandstein, I'd like to get your advise please on an issue that kind of similar to the one you were involved in solving a few months ago, but in my understanding you're going to be out most of the week. So the question is, if you have a time to deal with my issue tomorrow, or you do not. If you do, I'd explain to you the situation, if you do not, there is no need to post it to your talk page. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be away from the Internet most of this week.  Sandstein  07:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy your Wikibreak, Sandstein. I guess the rest of us will have to start pulling our weight at AE ;). AGK 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Old speedy deletion review

Hi Sandstein, I was just looking up an educational nonprofit, and found that it was speedied despite a citation and numerous references in mainstream media: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/Management_Leadership_for_Tomorrow

I also see that you deleted the personal bio of the last author of that article (though it could just have been moved to his userpage) - perhaps it looked like a personal COI of his. But the original article had 6 or 10 other contributors over many months. Would you mind undeleting it? You could put it up for AfD if you wish, though it seems to need rewriting rather than further proof of notability. –SJ+ 05:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Management Leadership for Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it was written entirely in a non-neutral, promotional, glossy-brochure style, per WP:CSD#G11. The previous version was also rather promotional. The external references seem to be all or mostly dead links or reprints of press releases. I do not think that Misplaced Pages benefits from a restoration of the article about a possibly non-notable entity in this poor shape, but I will userfy it to your userspace for improvement if you so request.  Sandstein  12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Jullien Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it was literally a personal CV written in the first person and full of self-promotion, per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. There is no better prior version of this article. I will therefore not restore this articles, but anybody may recreate it in a form that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria.  Sandstein  12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

tel kepa

Hi Dear Sandstein

I would like to know why you reject my edit and block my user from edit, my article had reference and lot of link but you or wikipedia system reject it. please tell me the reason.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshirabadi (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you may refer to your changes to Tel Keppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You were blocked and your changes were reverted because you copied whole sentences from another website into that article. Misplaced Pages does not allow this, as explained on your user talk page, because it is a copyright violation.  Sandstein  12:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Desyop

Wow! Your decision is the blindside equivalent of a sucker punch. From the beginning, you’ve made no secret of your desire to forgo any action against SD and to sanction me. You were absent from these discussions for a number of days and during your absence, different, newer diffs were introduced and more admins joined this thread, intelligently and thoroughly debating the issues presented. In your haste to sanction me, you’ve completely ignored and disregarded the views of at least four admins who suggested equal if not greater sanctions for SD. By your own admission, you neglected to read my posts and forced me to post twice and sometimes three times until you acknowledged them. In desperation, I had to post in the admin section until I got your attention. You completely ignored OUTING efforts by SD. In sum, your decision was arbitrary and capricious and demonstrates contempt for the views of your fellow admins. It also demonstrates an acute laziness on your part for failing to thoroughly review the diffs presented. Most importantly, by ignoring egregious OUTING efforts by SD as well as his inability to acknowledge wrong-doing for his actions, it represents the callous way in which you regard the privacy rights of others. You should be stripped of your administrative tools.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your view is noted. If you believe my decision was wrong, you can appeal it as provided for in the discretionary sanctions remedy.  Sandstein  14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the issues you raise, the conduct of Supreme Deliciousness is being examined elsewhere on the AE page. Any misconduct by him, or any failure by admins to respond to such misconduct, is not relevant with respect to the question whether you were correctly sanctioned for your own misconduct.  Sandstein  14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality policy

You say: But if an editor is mainly dedicated to editing many articles so as to present one side of the conflict in a better light, and does not make any substantial changes in favor of the opposing point of view, then it is exceedingly unlikely that all the articles they edit are biased in favor of the opposite POV, and the only reasonable explanation for this pattern of editing is a desire to push a partisan point of view on Misplaced Pages as a whole, in violation of WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I intend to henceforth sanction editors whose editing history shows that they are mostly dedicated to favoring a particular point of view across many articles, in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, for violating the neutrality policy. I believe this approach is misguided and illogical. Coniser the following example. A controversial A/B area has 200 articles. If we assume, for a moment, that on average wikiepdia is neutral but with some statistical errors, then 100 articles will be at least slightly biased towards A, the other 100 towards B. Also naturally 40 will be strongly biased towards A and vice versa. Editor C from A 'camp' sees 20 of these artiles as problematic. Naturally, he tries to correct these artlces. He encounters editors with opposing views who try to defend their POV. In the course of civil but robust discussion, consensus emerges and the articles gradually improve. This is how Misplaced Pages is built in many controverdsial areas. And yet under your approach, editor C will be indefinitely topic banned. Everyone has biases. But unless they cause serious disruption they should be allowed to contrinbute to Misplaced Pages. In my view, your approach runs contrary to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. I am interested in your response. I intend to seek opinion of other admins. Please note my concern is not related to one particular action of yours, but the whole approach described above and demonstrated in a number of your recent AE actions across several ArbCom DS areas. - BorisG (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing: Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation. I think a number of editors topic banned by yourself in a number of areas belong to the former category. What do you think ? - BorisG (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

AE appeal by Alinor

Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Alinor. Alinor (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)