Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:07, 20 January 2013

Italic text

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.

You need to give the discussion more time

The discussion hasn't been open that long. I highly recommend giving the discussion on Rich F more time so that others may comment. Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AE

You undoubtedly missed my explanation that under these restrictions I am not allowed to follow the instructions to raise an amendment request. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Perhaps, but I don't see how that pertains to the currently open AE request. It's not about any amendment request.  Sandstein  22:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"This is not the place to discuss the merits of arbitral decisions. The place to do so would be an amendment request, or the Committee's talk page." Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

I don't see why you can't make an amendment request by typing it into the edit box. At any rate, this has nothing to do with the edit that is the subject of the AE request.  Sandstein  23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you back

...at AE. Your presence has been sorely missed. (Belated thanks, too, for your kind words on my talk page earlier.) T. Canens (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I think with you on the Committee things may be a bit more ... foreseeable.  Sandstein  22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A request

BLP issue. Myself and others have been attempting to keep a lid on the user's posting of BLP violating info on the article, (Its been rev-del'd numerous times now from the article talkpage) but he has persisted and switched to posting it on his own talkpage. The last time he did everything short of pasting a giant signpost going 'HERE IS THE PERSON I AM TALKING ABOUT'. There are open sections at ANI and BLP but no one has actually blocked the editor yet despite the clear intentions to keep posting it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a problematic SPA.  Sandstein  08:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica

Hi. On occasion, I read ANI to get a feeling for the community and how things are done. As a randomly chosen, previously uninvolved admin, I wonder if you might have a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xerographica and the subject user's talk page (or refer it to another uninvolved admin). It looks to me that, while the user definitely could use a little attitude adjustment, the way he is being dealt with by the involved editors and admins is unlikely to produce anything more than a permanent block of someone who may have something useful to contribute. His supposed "personal attacks" while uncivil and the wrong approach, did, in fact focus on actions by the targets, not any unrelated personal issues. It's not nice to call someone incompetent, but it may not have necessarily been untrue, and blocking someone for it seems, well, extreme.

Again, I've got no "skin" in this – I don't know any of the involved parties and haven't dealt with any of them as far as I can recall. It just seems like a user is being ganged-up on and could use a fresh pair of eyes on the situation. Thanks. —— 11:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, as Xero called someone a "liar" and said that that multiple editors "sole goals" were to "delete things off of Misplaced Pages", I'm trying hard to actually see how those are not personal attacks? Trust me, I've been trying (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

AlanM1, sorry, but this request is a bit unspecific. It's not clear from the ANI thread what I or any other individual administrator can or should do there.  Sandstein  13:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hello.

This message is to inform you that you are being mentioned ... no, just kidding.

But pls see my concern at WP:AN/I#Gossip may need revdel about the possible need for revdel'ing the user's talkpage.

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are some history versions needing revdel in my opinion:

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

inre waaaay old news

Thirty-five months ago you brought a poorly sourced article on Jami Floyd to AFD. While I am in full agreement that the deleted version contained only one deadlink as a source and her awards were not explained, expanded, nor themselves sourced... I felt back then that issues were addressable under WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Sorry to say, but still feeling the issues were addressable, it took me until now to actually get to improving it (with help). I'd much appreciate your looking at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd to see if your concerns from 3 years ago have finally been addressed to the point where we have something to serve the project and its readers. Thanks, Schmidt, 22:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks much better and, er, notabler now, so I have no inclination to renominate it for deletion if you restore it. Although I find the lead sentence – "Jami Floyd is a Multiracial American attorney" – rather irritating; our biographies normally don't begin with a racial label as though the color of a person's skin were the most important thing about them.  Sandstein  09:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

AE

Wasn't that a bit quick on the close, I just plowed through most of the thread just now, and everyone seemed to be divided on the matter. Just out of curiosity.—cyberpower _Offline 04:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The editors commenting were certainly divided, but that's to be expected in the enforcement of a case that's apparently been very divisive (though I'm unfamiliar with the background). Normally, both sides of arbitrated disputes tend to show up at AE threads to support their respective side or friends. That's why I don't take the views of commentators into account very much, and that's why arbitration and its enforcement process aren't based on community consensus. Rather, uninvolved enforcing administrators are authorized to use their own discretion to determine whether an enforceable breach of sanctions has occurred. Consequently, what I principally look to are the views of other uninvolved administrators, which were rather less divided. At any rate, there are venues of appeal, either to the Arbitration Committee or conceivably to the community, in which the opinion of other people becomes important again.  Sandstein  09:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)