Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 11 January 2010 (→Possible violation of topic ban: blocked). 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.

Good work

On the Nableezy AE. I would have let my comment at the appeal speak for itself, but since Tiamut contacted 20 people who are not on my side of the aisle, and is now commenting on how many of them turned up to comment here, I thought it was worth saying hello, happy new year, and good job. WP is often an unjust place, I've found. It's a pleasure to see some good work done. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lifting the ban

Good move, thank you. SlimVirgin 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see now that it is frankly not worth taking up the time of all concerned to argue about sanctions that result in sanctions that result... Discretionary sanctions are really most appropriately used to react to actual disruption, of which I hope we will not see any by Nableezy any time soon.  Sandstein  18:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to second Slim's comments. As I said in my main comment, there are more than two people who have been working themselves up over this. What you have just done will hopefully quieten things for a while. What I found most encouraging about this episode is that a couple of editors did advocate on behalf of someone on the "other" side of the I-P dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC) (Off to Nableezy's page before returning to the exchange of friendly greetings with representatives of the Jewish Internet Defense Force ;-)

I couldn't agree more with all the sentiments above. Thanks, Sandstein, John Z (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not usually one to hand out shiny crap, but this is one occasion I can not miss. AE certainly is a thankless task; trying to make non-obvious decisions while most participants are busy throwing up smokescreens. Do it right and people are pissed at you, get it wrong and even more people are pissed at you.

I was right in the middle of digging through diffs and timelines and writing a long and rambling opinion on the Nableezy case, which you thankfully saved me from. And for this I say: Thanks, Sandstein, we owe you one:

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For skillfully and determinedly navigating the arbitration enforcement process. henrik•talk 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and also to all colleagues who did already write these long rambling opinions :-)  Sandstein  18:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Happy New Year from Thailand. You are a great editor. I have been looking at Thailand-related articles, and noticed an article about an obscure man who worked as a missionary in Thailand. I can find nothing related to WIKI notability standards. So far only one note to KEEP with no valid reason. Your opinion is appreciated. Thank you. รัก-ไทย 07:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, thanks; which article?  Sandstein  07:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of former

Good close. And well-written and explained rationale. You may want to leave a note, at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Former_religion. Hope you are doing well, Cirt (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the AfD is already linked in that discussion. Best regards,  Sandstein  07:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, no worries, Cirt (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My appeal

I think I will follow your advice and withdraw my appeal. I will do my best to be problem-free for about 2 months and then ask Henrik to lift the formal restriction. Sorry for all the trouble I have caused. Offliner (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible violation of topic ban

Hi, I'm not sure of the proper procedures, but this is just to let you know that Tymek has violated his topic ban here: Triplestop x3 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Tymek to comment here.  Sandstein  06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Triplestop for being so interested in my me and my contributions to the project. Such vigilant members of civilian Wiki-militia are always appreciated. Now to the topic. The only thing that Poeticbent has in comon with Eastern Europe is that he is a Polish born, Canadian-Polish artist. Where he was born and went to school is obviously not material to his article. Since Triplestop is fully aware of this, given how closely he followed the case (for no apparant reason) this notification is just the worst kind of block-shopping by him, not to mention a cynical attempt at silencing those who might vote against him in his AfD. Tymek (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject, Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is not only a Polish national, but almost all of the article concerns his work in or about Poland, which is a country in Eastern Europe. Consequently, by editing the AfD about him, you violated your topic ban (WP:EEML#Tymek topic banned) "from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed". Moreover, your comment above is unnecessarily aggressive and derogatory; by making such comments you treat Misplaced Pages as a battleground, conduct for which the Committee has already censured you (WP:EEML#Disruption 3). Per WP:EEML#Enforcement, therefore, you are blocked for 48 hours.  Sandstein  16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)