Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 12 June 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.

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!

User Smith2006

Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you with this one since I'm not sure if this is o.k. or not. You have placed user Smith2006 on E.Europe topic ban for 6 months. He however, keeps making rude comments on the talk page of Jan Dzierzon such as:],],]. Is this acceptable?--Jacurek (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I already noticed due to his post to WP:AE, which I have watchlisted, and have blocked him for 48 hours for violating the topic ban.  Sandstein  17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh o.k. thank you, his comments were very rude also...--Jacurek (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, just to let you know that he is active and back at it again right after his block expired.]] Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked.  Sandstein  20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Other issue

Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you again, but I was placed on a "black list" and my rollback rights (which I use to revert vandalism) have been removed from me by one of the administrators for rolling back Smith2006 edits while he was banned. Could you please look at it (of course if when you can)]. I think that this was not justified but maybe I am wrong, I don't know.Thank you--Jacurek (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just confirmed that I could use rollback to revert edits of banned users] and another edits were vandalism made by a anon user who never edited before] and removed a picture and tons of sourced material, changed names of Polish cities from Kresy in 1931 but according to the rules the names should be as they were then not now. I really think that this was a vandalism and not a good faith edits. Hope this was just a mistake of the admin. When you get a chance could you look at it.? Thanks a lot.--Jacurek (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I need your opinion please. I'm being unjustly punished. Please look at this when you get a chance.] Thank you so much.--Jacurek (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Could you please tell me what the "punishment" that you object to is, and what you want me to to do?  Sandstein  05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

An administrator who gave an example of my rollbacks of Smith’s edits while he was restricted (actually already banned by you) and another Anon who removed tons of information from the page as misuse and removed my rollbacks privileges. He later realized that he made a mistake as far as Smith, saying that I maybe had some room there but later went on and dogged out other examples of misuse I do not think were misuse. This is my opinion of course and I may be wrong. The problem is that in my opinion (I may be wrong again) he is now defending his decision, which was a mistake, and is looking for examples of misuse to justify it. This is how I feel. Unfortunately to get a big picture you would have to read all this] and get some background history on Administrator as well since he has a history of disagreements with Polish editors]] and I feel that his decision was a little tendentious as well. I am not sure if you have time or desire to do this but I thought that I might ask since you were the one who banned Smith in a first place. All I want is an opinion, true opinion. I feel very strongly about and I do not expect anything out of it. Just an honest opinion. If you could look at this it would be great, if not perhaps you could suggest something. Thanks Sandstein--Jacurek (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't reply to you due to edit conflicts. Please use the preview feature (and edit summaries) and make only one edit to my talk page per message. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In adition to all of above please also take a look at this]

I was placed on this list just below Smith you have banned for rolling back his edits etc. I think this is total injustice. I would appreciate any advice or opinion form you at your convenience of course, no rush. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jacurek that he has been treated unfairly here, and by an involved admin. As I can myself be seen as involved, I am not undoing what happened (wheel war = evil), but I think there was a gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of admin power here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is a proper use of rollback to undo edits made by topic-banned users in violation of their topic ban. (Because such rollbacks are easily mistaken for edit-warring, given that no edit summary is possible, it is probably prudent not to make them anyway.) But it seems that Deacon of Pndapetzim removed your rollback privileges also because of other rollbacks made by you, for instance and , which are not reverts of vandalism. I find that, in removing your rollback access for such edits, Deacon of Pndapetzim acted properly and explained himself adequately.

The Digwuren notification, on the other hand, was superfluous because the relevant remedy, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction, is no longer in force. But it does no harm either.  Sandstein  11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. I will still file an appeal because (%100 honest) I did not have any bad intention even in the questionable rollbacks and if you compare %99 of my vandalism rollbacks to %1 in question you can find a proof right there. I know that a warning and a friendly advice would work for me. I always follow advices of more experienced editors. There was no need to treat me so harsh and placing me on a "black list" for example. P.S. Thanks again for your time and an opinion, I know that this is a minor issue for you but it is soooooo important to me. Last night I was even debating if I should quit editing altogether because of this. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The apeal has been filed already]. I know that your opinion as far as the use of my rollback rights is not in my favour but it is honest and I respect that very much. As per my comment above, I think that I was judged and punished by that administrator very quickly..too quickly. Thanks again for your time Sandstein.--Jacurek (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Three things to consider. First, should an involved, prejudiced admin be the one to take such actions? Second, wouldn't a word of caution (warning) be better then removal of rollback - after all, isn't most of Jacurek's rollbacks helpful to the project? Third, the Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions superceeded the General restriction and is very much in force (see the log of blocks and bans on this page - the one to which you contributed yourself very recently :)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For pointing out that copyvio; I was about to do so. For fun, check this Google search: The last one is my favourite :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, total discomfiture indeed.  Sandstein  19:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiachi

Why the monkey nuts did you delete the page I was making?!

That is really unfair because it is not vandalism and blatant misinformation and what ever else it said in the deletion log! It is what I believe I was making that as a reference for others and I think this could be taken as racism(or religionism or something(I'm not sure what the real word is :P) by some. I don't, just. Give me some decent reason why I can't post that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaail of Hrusk (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you appear to have made that religion up. You are not allowed to submit content that others cannot verify in reliable sources, see WP:V.  Sandstein  20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

carrying on from the above

what about other Kiachen? They can verify it surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaail of Hrusk (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS.  Sandstein  16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your closing

Hi Sandstein, Obviously I feel that this was an unfortunate decision, I believe that I showed you 3 concurrent edit wars that never should have been. This does not constitute a simple content disagreement but a state of mind and an unfortunate strategy. I believe that you were in a position to facilitate an atmosphere more conducive to actual discussion and avoiding edit wars. I realize that you probably have better things to do, but I hope you will comment on the following:

1. Misplaced Pages uses labels dictated by the prevalence in sources, yes? no?

1. Ignoring discussion is disruptive, yes? no?

Thanks in advance, Unomi (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that it would be helpful to discuss these questions of editorial policy here. In general, please take into account that the administrators patrolling WP:AE depend on the clarity and conciseness of your report to decide whether a situation is actionable. More complicated situations involving multiple editors are ill-suited to AE, but should be resolved through dispute resolution. AE administrators will generally only act if they are convinced, without undue effort on their part, that a situation is ripe for an enforcement action. That is not the case here.  Sandstein  15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am asking for here is advice. I think we both agree that in absolute terms the answer to both of my questions is yes. I can only understand your closing as an indication that I had not shown that those 2 premises were violated. Is that correct? Please understand that I am not asking you to revisit or modify your closing, I am simply trying to find out how I can avoid such misunderstandings in the future. Further, I would like to request that you accept me for mentorship so that I may learn the proper application of wikipedia policy. I hope that you will accept. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have not shown is clear and sanctionable misconduct. We do not generally sanction people for violating content policies, such as WP:NPOV or WP:V, as long as we believe that there may be a good faith disagreement about the application of such policies to the facts at issue. Disputes of that nature are generally referred to as "content disputes" and are expected to be resolved amicably through consensus as provided for in WP:DR. Administrative sanctions are really only applicable to conduct issues such as edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry or really obvious and blatant violations of, say, WP:NPOV. In either case, it is up to you to provide a persuasive report through the use of well-selected and well-explained diffs. If you provide dozens of unexplained diffs, and I click on a few of them and most appear unproblematic, I will not investigate further. Remember, admins will not usually comb through contributions and histories to find misconduct; it is up to you as a requesting user to explain the pertinent facts.

Because I do not engage in mentorship programmes, I must unfortunately turn down that request also.  Sandstein  18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my initial post to WP:AE could have been more clear. I deliberately wanted to avoid singling out other editors involved because I believed that my desired outcome would have cleared the air more efficiently. The problem I am facing now is that it is likely that when I involve other venues of DR I will be met with allegations forum shopping such as ice cold beer already did when I first brought it to AE. I am sorry to hear that you cannot be my mentor but thank you for your consideration. Unomi (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that you appear to have made an edit after the closing. Perhaps you should consider removing it. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict, I had the editing window open while finding some sources. I have now moved the offending response outside the archived box, I trust that you are directing jehochman to do the same. Unomi (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, you were carrying on the dispute, Jehochman's edit was procedural, and in any case the closing Administrator replied to it and it seems obvious that therefore I shouldn't intervene. And in any case, someone else has moved these comments into a separate box making the issue moot. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Unomi (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Don't worry, I just was wondering lol xD, I know, thank you for your reply. --TownDown 17:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Roblox

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roblox. 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. --gordonrox24 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding proper course of action.

Hi Sandstein, While I do not wish to 'drag you' into this, I need some guidance as to a proper course of action. This is in regards to reversing the burden of evidence in the BRD process as well as contested claims of existing consensus. initial discussion and now Please do have a read thru and inform me of what you believe would be a proper course of action. Unomi (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend continued, civil, ontopic discussion, perhaps posting to the WP:FTN with a neutral description, and if you aren't satisfied then starting an RFC. I wouldn't go straight to an RFC as it would look like trying to short circuit discussion. Verbal chat 10:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, prior to reading this I had followed Tom Harrisons previous suggestion to open an RFC. I am not quite sure what FTN has to do with parsing a quote. It becomes difficult to carry on a proper discussion when a. it degrades in to "I'm right, you are wrong" and b. proper process is ignored and the contested material is kept in thru edit warring. I tried to explain how I came to my view on the quote and the points in my argument seemed to be ignored. I suggested to include the quote in full, but this too has been ignored. I did not 'abandon' the discussion, merely waiting for a response to my arguments. So quite frankly I am at a loss. Unomi (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Posting to FTN with a quick outline "There is disagreement as to how this quote should be used in the article (quote) Please give your opinions and help establish consensus here (link to discussion, the first one maybe)." would bring more people and help establish consensus. I don't think proper process has been ignored (and I don't mean thzt edit warring is a normal process.... ;). Verbal chat 10:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper process would have been to ask if parties agreed to the manner in which the contested material was presented in the article, the article history shows clear signs of edit warring, one which is continuing even now. Please address the arguments I present in the initial thread. Unomi (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that I do not have the time to familiarize myself fully with the situation, but on the face of it Verbal's suggestion looks reasonable.  Sandstein  05:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If possible

Hi,

Thanks for your understanding in the situation, can you please have a word with Eugene Krabs as he is threatening me with a last warning for Vandalism when we have already resolved the issue regarding the Federer page and now he is having a go at me for editing my own message to yourself, help!Joshuaselig (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! :) --Joshuaselig (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied.

I've replied on my talk page. Sorry for the trouble. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

You seem confident that you understand the remedies in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, while I am not at all confident that I understand them. Here's a situation that I'm not sure about, so perhaps you can make a ruling beforehand. An editor added a long list of POV problems with Prem Rawat at talk:Prem Rawat#Article hides controversy, is not presented in a neutral way. Noting that the issues seemed to reflect a POV dispute, I added a POV tag to the article. Another editor reverted my addition of the tag. So now what? May I restore the tag now? Must I wait 8 days to restore the tag? Which is it?   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations, "if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." Since you added the "POV" tag, and Pergamino reverted this, my interpretation of the restriction is that you may not re-add the tag until seven days after Pergamino's removal.  Sandstein  05:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If I'm not mistaken, Pergamino would also be able to immediately revert my revert in seven days.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends on when the seven-day period begins. If it begins with the revert and not with the original edit, he too would have to wait seven days. Perhaps this might be the subject of a clarification request?  Sandstein  05:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your time at AE today.--Jacurek (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Sandstein...

As you appear to be perceiving this as troublesome, please indicate if you don't mind it much exactly what was wrong with this: . PasswordUsername (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, vandalism? No way Putinjugend can in good faith be construed as an attack page as defined in WP:CSD#G10. It even says outright that the term is a a pejorative neologism and a slur.  Sandstein  18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fucking lunatic" was deleted for similar reasons, despite similar protests from editors. That was a pejorative term used in a political context, too. The only difference then is BLP–that's important, of course, though I did not see that as much of an issue when I tagged the Putinjugend entry. I'm not sure why you think I was not acting in good faith there–I formally joined in April and am not an expert in picking out nuances exactly. Hence I let my instincts and sense of analogy direct me at certain points. I'm not sure Putinjugend is just a good faith sort of thing–do we really need a separate article for the one paragraph that can be placed in Nashi? PasswordUsername (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly something worth discussing (I have no real opinion on the subject), but the way to go about it is not to replace the article with a speedy deletion tag. Tags go at the top of the article. And Putinjugend does not attack anybody. It does not allege that the "Nashi" are a kind of Hitlerjugend (that would be a deletable attack page). It reports that "Putinjugend" is a slur used against the "Nashi", which is not the same thing at all.  Sandstein  18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fucking lunatic" did not allege that the person referenced was a fucking lunatic, only that he was controversially discussed as such. So the analogy seemed apt. Yet pages like Macacawitz and Bongo from Congo had their db-attack nominations rejected outright. I'm still digressing here, but I'd seen the G10 criterion applied thrice in my life here, and the first time was in a fashion similar to that in which I applied it to Putinjugend. What is "designed" to threaten or disparage someone seems like an ambiguity–a matter of interpretation as I looked at it, given the manner in which the db-attack template had been used.

Thanks for the explanation. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, sorry for assuming bad faith. With respect to your complaint at AN, such reports should be made directly at WP:AE in proper form, where they will see faster action and less drama. You should also not make sweeping generalizations ("everything X does is an outrage") or emotional claims. That is not actionable. What helps are well-selected diffs documenting specific misconduct.  Sandstein  18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I'm still new in a very relative sort of way, really, but I certainly do try to stick to policies. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Claudia MEyer (erased page by you)

Hello,

Would you please clarify why you would erase someone based on the fact that this person is not registered in in SIKART Please know that someone who is not registered in in SIKART as " A vaguely Notable visual artist" Can have very good reasons to NOT BE LISTED THERE... I find your comment and behavior unacceptable. Please search a bit deeper before erasing. There is such a thing as The World Wide web and galleries websites.

Please read below. Mr Meyer, Agent and Partner

Your quote:

Delete. She is not included in SIKART, a database that includes all even vaguely notable Swiss visual artists. Also, the article is unsourced, causing her to fail WP:BIO.  Sandstein  15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Meyer (erased page by you)

My Email to Farictramp

Hello, Would you please let me know what makes you eligible to erase the Claudia Meyer page. Mrs Meyer is a Swiss contemporary exhibiting in numeral art galleries in Europe the USA and France. There was numerous website referenced on her wikepedia page which justified and attested of her existence. All you had to do is visit and contact the art galleries websites if you wanted to verified the accurency of the posted informations. Furthermore. A google search would have help you even more. Who are you? Can you please clarify. I am Mrs Meyer agent and partner in life you can contact me avia the official website or visit the Artist website at www.claudiameyer.com DO NOT erase her page again or I will contact Misplaced Pages for a formal complain.

Thank You Mr Meyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.121.145 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) While I do have the authority to delete pages that don't meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines (see WP:ADMIN), I did not erase the Claudia Meyer page nor did I make a single edit to the page. That page was deleted by Spartaz as the result of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Claudia Meyer. I did not express any opinion in that discussion -- I simply listed it on two lists that track deletion discussions for those who are interested in following them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meto59 (talk • contribs)

I would appreciate hearing from you in regard to the page you wrongly erased. Please refer to previous post above for more information.

Thank You

Mr. Meyer Artist Agent and Partner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meto59 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page at issue as directed in the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

mIRCStats userification

You may as well just move the mIRCStats article to my userspace for now then, I'm sure we'll be able to do more with it later. There was actually much more going on with the nomination of this article for AfD than what was apparent in the AfD itself. I did not feel I should bring it up there as I was trying to limit my contact with User:Theserialcomma. I was discussing this with User:A Nobody while trying to get a referral for an admin who could work on this and you can find a summary with links to most everything on A Nobody's talk page here. Tothwolf (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, at User:Tothwolf/MIRCStats.  Sandstein  11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Hello Sandstein,

I see on the page ] that you have deleted the Paul Pantone's page. I would like to know the reasons why the article was deleted and if it was possible to access to the deleted version of the article. Also, if the old version is not suitable for wikipedia's standards, I would like to translate the French version of Paul Pantone's page. This would be a good start.

Thank you for your consideration,

Samsagas01 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement reports

You said: "It is preferable to examine and if need be sanction each user's alleged misconduct individually based on clear reports." I reported Digwuren to WP:AN for similar violations of WP:DIGWUREN sactions, but the resulting discussion got completely derailed and nothing was done. I had a clear feeling that the evidence was not really looked at because WP:AN was the wrong venue. Do you think it would be a good idea to post a more clear report of the same issue to WP:AE? Offliner (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)