Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 6 June 2010 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/June.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 note

It would be kind of you, when, even if not giving a fig to what I say (I think at all), closing my appeal, you'd have warned me on my talk-page. Note this please, as an admin, because I see I am not the only one having this kind of impression of your behavior towards other editors. Regards Aregakn (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Warn you about what?  Sandstein  18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The "outcome" of it. Aregakn (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The lack of success of your appeal does not require a warning, since it does not require you to change your conduct.  Sandstein  21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tha lack of attention to the case does not require a closure but a notice on the admin boards. And this was a note of your approach to editors in general and not a warning. If you're not interested in how the editors might see you due to your conduct, well, "c'est la vie". Aregakn (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket

You may want to check this user's talk page. Since your block has gone up, they have made repeated implications, and now outright statements, that they have no intentions of ceasing or amending this behavior. If that is the case, I think a permanent block may honestly be called for. Just read over the comments and see what you think, make your call. I defer to you as the blocking admin. - Vianello (Talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify my point a little: If this behavior is unacceptable and warrants a block, then if it is going to continue in perpetuity, indefinite blocking makes more preventative sense than repeated re-blocking for re-occurring altercations. I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm just trying to make my reasoning clear, because I am not always good at that. Attempts to explain this problem to the user were met with a "not interested" and a questionably useful removal of the comment. - Vianello (Talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I've kind of been chatting with User:Hell in a Bucket, and I just want to, for what is worth, agree with Vianello. I tried to explain to him why he was banned, since he seems to think it is some plot of User:BlackCab, and his responses were kind of telling. I pointed out that his actions were obviously a complete violation of WP:PROFANE and WP:CIVILITY, but he doesn't believe it. This may be just my personal psychoanalysis, but he is simply refusing to accept responsibility for his actions. I explain to him that he was banned solely for his own actions here and here and User:Hell in a Bucket here and here immediately tries to shift the discussion onto the actions of User:BlackCab and their editing dispute, which is irrelevant to his block. I finally asked him, flat out, if he understood that his block had been given independantly of BlackCab's editing, and his response is again to shift the blame onto BlackCab. Regards, --Pstanton (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read the talk page, and do not believe any action is necessary unless the problem reoccurs after the block's expiration.  Sandstein  07:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I agree with your prudent course of action. This editor has also contributed very substantially to the encyclopedia. We should indef when only absolutely necessary and when we are certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the user is irredeemable and a net loss to the project. These points have not been adequately addressed at present. This would invite unnecessary drama. Thank you Sandstein. Dr.K.  15:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time just recently I've seen arguments made that free exemptions to the rules should be a reward for contribution. I cannot help but find this somewhat disturbing. But that aside, I don't think Sandstein's call is off-base. While I am confident it will re-occur, considering the user has essentially promised it will, who knows? The possibility does exist I'm dead wrong and this will never happen again. So, a wait-and-see does seem fair enough to me. Thanks for listening, as well as to the outside commentators for their opinions whether I agree with the entirety of them or not. Further debate/opinion may crop up here, but to avoid spamming Sandstein's talk overmuch I'm going to bow out of further commentary on my part at this point. - Vianello (Talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Vianello for your nice comments and I also thank you for agreeing to disagree in a very fair fashion. I also echo your feelings about spamming Sandstein's page, so I am in a hurry to also exit from here. I am not familiar with the present case but as regards your comments about rewarding bad behaviour for contributions, rest assured that I share your concern on the matter. But I do not think that in this case the violations were egregious enough to justify an indef. Anyway, mindful always of spamming I will exit on that point thanking Sandstein for his hospitality on the way out. Take care all. Dr.K.  18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Vianello, I can see how much you agree with sandstein based on your posts above, I do however understand you are also a admin so I do appreciate not being block happy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Uneven rules (or application thereof)

I found it interesting, given your statements as to transparency, that since then a sysop who lifted a block early did so on the basis of private emails that followed public communications. When I asked him to make public the email content, redacting anything private or sensitive, he refused, saying there was no requirement that he do so, and he was not so inclined, and if I disagreed I could bring him up to a noticeboard. I found that not only oddly rude, but also way different than the approach you suggest is necessary for transparency. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be something that needs to be discussed with the other admin, not me, I'm afraid.  Sandstein  05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

What am i to do if an editor removes a POV tag from an article without waiting for discussion? And then posts this when i ask him to self revert? Some reading material countering denialism POV tags are not to be removed until a consensus is reached right? mark nutley (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, so the normal WP:DR rules apply, only more so because the article is on probation. I recommend that you focus on discussing the contested statements themselves, and the sources that do (or do not) support them, rather than on tags, which are frankly not very helpful.  Sandstein  13:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AA2

Hi!
As an admin, you're sometimes active on AA2 enforcement cases; in this regard, I think you should be aware of this.
Personnaly, as an admin on WP:fr, I think it's very interesting.
Regards,
Sardur (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think it's relevant to this project unless there has been coordinated editing on en.wp. In that case, a request for arbitration or arbitration enforcement should be made on en.wp.  Sandstein  08:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User page Tarun Marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

Sir,I have sought deletion review of my captioned article on 26.05.2010.==Deletion review for Page name Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Page name Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. 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. Tarun marwaha (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't. I can't find any entry on WP:DRV concerning that subject.  Sandstein  08:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)