Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dojarca (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 2 October 2009 (→Loosemark). 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.

Technical question related to the evaluation of evidence

Since you got dragged into this as a completely innocent party simply because we mentioned your name on the list, personally I think you have every right to see the emails (keep in mind though that they could have been altered). I can't speak for others, but you got my go ahead. But also keep in mind that we did express our opinions frankly and not everything said on there is "nice".radek (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A question regarding userfying a deleted article

Despite my passionate struggle, my article Kresimir Chris Kunej was delted (once by you) and the decision was endorsed at Del Rev despite all my attempts. I was wondering if it would be possible to still "userfy" the article in my pages. I wish to keep trying to work on it and to obtain reliable sources for the article, and possibly reinstate it in time. Are you able to do this or should I ask the Del Rev closing editor? Thanks for your reply. Oh, and I see that you are in an admin review case, I am sorry if my closing reasons drama added fuel to the fire...Turqoise127 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made an official request at WP:UND, not having been aware of its existance before. Thank you and sorry for interruption.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Matthead could be a sockpuppeteer

The contributions of this account added to the fact that the account was created only yesterday is also suspicious.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect you to file your claim at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Too late, it got archived. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified this account. -- Matthead  Discuß   12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, I expect explanation or apology from Sky Attacker (from Sandstein, too). -- Matthead  Discuß   15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My notification was removed by Sky Attacker. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice

You're placing an awfully high percentage of the blocks and sanctions at WP:ANI and WP:AE. I advise you to proceed with more care and let others take up the slack. We need you, but the way you're going, you are bound to run into trouble. Jehochman 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Trouble?  Sandstein  11:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, trouble, kemosabe. Tonto 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What kind of trouble, please?  Sandstein  12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The torches and pitchforks kind. Jehochman 12:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Subtlety (and what I assume are American cultural references) is lost on me, I am afraid. Is this a threat, a joke or what?  Sandstein  12:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's serious, good-natured advice, Mr. Lone Ranger. Jehochman 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would appreciate if you tell me what kind of trouble you are speaking of. Disgruntled disruptive users screaming ADMIN ABUSE!!! on the noticeboards? That's not a big deal.  Sandstein  12:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal until you mistakenly block the wrong person, then a whole ton of people will come down on you. Some of these "disgruntled, disruptive users" are good faith contributors who may go astray from time to time, but they do have friends. You're accumulating a lot of adversaries in a short time. Jehochman 12:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I see what you mean, but I won't play along. I refuse to engage in Wikipolitics, or social games, or thinking of others in terms of friends or adversaries, and I expect all honest editors to do likewise. As long as I'm an admin, I try to do what's best for the project, which generally means applying our policies in an as evenhanded a manner as possible, within community consensus of course. That may occasionally including blocking the "wrong" person. If that brings trouble, so be it. If the community as a whole (as opposed to a few who treat this website as a social network) does not like what I am doing, I have no problem with just going back to content editing exclusively.  Sandstein  15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When you login you can go to ANI or AE and look for a problem to solve, or you can look for an article to edit. I'm suggesting a bit less ANI and AE. You don't need to compromise your principals. Jehochman 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In Sandstein's defense, when I took my break and took AE off my watchlist, he was one of the very few people to pick up the slack. I may not have agreed with him on how he handled some of the things (I think he dismantled something that was working in an area where few sanctions did).. at least he stood up, which is more then most admins do. SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! And I hope he will keep standing up, rather than getting knocked down or burned out. We need to encourage more admins to help so Sandstein doesn't have to do all this scut work by himself. Jehochman 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. One of the following things will happen to every admin who volunteers in AE. A) Due to lack of volunteers (because it's not easy, and it's like firefighting.. all you're trying to do is contain blazes, not stop them), you will burn out. B) You will end up being stabbed in the back (again, you're dealing with every long term dispute at one board). C) Both A and B. (Cynical, ain't I?) SirFozzie (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

D) Periodically walk away and do something else before A, B, or C happens. Then return later when you feel refreshed and can take a fresh look at the conflicts. Jehochman 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I am doing D now, as I've stopped working on AE because of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight. If the ArbCom won't make sure that admins can enforce their sanctions effectively, they're welcome to do their own enforcement.  Sandstein  19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Law's been de-admined, twice now. What more could you ask of them? Apparently the user did not have the necessary judgment to be an admin. Jehochman 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he was desysopped for an unrelated matter. What I would like is for the ArbCom to indicate clearly that they will in fact desysop admins who undo enforcement actions without getting clear public consensus for doing so. If any admin can undo enforcement actions at will, I'm out of AE. I have no inclination to slog through Giano-scale ANI threads every time I am just executing a decision that has been made based on more than ample discussion and deliberation already.  Sandstein  13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthead

Header inserted by  Sandstein  13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein has accused me of Sockpuppetry, claiming "very strong behavioral evidence", threatening to block me. Now that he was disproven by the Checkuser, he claims "the edit pattern is indicative of meatpuppetry". What next, am I going to be accused of using telekinesis to operate other peoples keyboards and mice?-- Matthead  Discuß   19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser can't prove a negative. What's that got to do with the above?  Sandstein  20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What's it got to do with the above is you not getting advice and continuing to cause trouble to others and yourself at various places. I would call your Sockpuppetry accusation against me the lamest ever, if not in the section right above, someone else would have lowered the standards even more. Your threat to block me, however, is serious matter. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. That's why I advise you to stop what appears to me to be a likely practice of sock- or meatpuppetry.  Sandstein  13:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to let an account go about its business and keep an eye on it until such time as there is solid evidence to justify enforcement. If the user goes off and writes useful articles, then we just leave them alone. No harm, no foul. Jehochman 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence, in this case, but I am not sure whether it warrants sanctions without CU confirmation. Your input would be appreciated.  Sandstein  13:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? Link? Jehochman 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence is only in Sandstein's imagination, I dare to say. It's real world manifestation is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead/Archive. A pretty unceremonious ending (if that is the end). Is there no such thing as an acquittal?-- Matthead  Discuß   15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCKPUPPET

Hi Sandstein, the diff over the past month is kind of hard to comprehend. Is it possible to briefly summarise what direction changes to the policy have taken recently? There seems to be some dithering, when it's considered as a whole. Tony (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to editing that policy myself, sorry. What diff do you refer to?  Sandstein  13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I will shortly be cleaning up vandalism done by various editors at articles related to Steven Goldberg and patriarchy. You are most welcome to become cognisant with the content issues and participate; or alternatively, I'd appreciate an extra editor keeping one or two difficult editors in line.

I'm quite confident that a couple of friends and I should be able to manage this without your time and trouble, but since you've shown an interest in the past, we'd love to introduce you to the reliable sources that can increase your personal knowledge of the subjects.

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I know nothing about the topics of Steven Goldberg or patriarchy, and they do not particularly interest me. I don't think that I'll be involving myself with the content of these articles. I, or any other administrator, are available to deal with vandalism reports, of course, but such reports are most rapidly processed at WP:AIV. Best regards,  Sandstein  18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sandstein..

your rewording on RfArb accidentally removed a full statement from Nathan.. could you revert it please? SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Stupid buggy script. Got to stop using it on busy pages.  Sandstein  19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just about to mention the same thing as SirFozzie. I saw you using the Reword script and have started using it myself - haven't encountered this bug yet, but I've been checking each time I use it just in case ;) Nathan 19:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to overwrite very recent edits. It probably ought to purge the server cache or something prior to editing. I've left a bug report with the author, but to no effect so far.  Sandstein  19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock update

You recently indef blocked a sock of Gazpacho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per . Just wanted to make you aware of this IP sock . I blocked it as a sock, and noted that unblock requests should be made for the main account, not its socks. I hope that is alright with you. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And see also this . Cirt (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And interestingly, now this . Cirt (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I've no objections to all of this.  Sandstein  05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

good close

Thanks for your thoughtful close of Hannah Giles AfD. I agree that the case is not clear cut and we should have better information in a few months. If she does disappear into obscurity I will be the first to renom. Ronnotel (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosemark

Hi! Arent these edits a violation of topic-ban, imposed on Loosemark? --Dojarca (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A link to the topic ban, please.  Sandstein  20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)I

, bottom of the page.--Dojarca (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not fully realise the scope of the topic-ban. Anyway, last diff concerns Polish Ukrainians.--Dojarca (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)