Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:42, 16 September 2009 editTurqoise127 (talk | contribs)859 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 20:18, 16 September 2009 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,571 edits Mediation: rNext edit →
Line 70: Line 70:
. .
I see from the comments there that Piotrus thinks that I will be banned (!?) if i participate. My understanding is that I am of course allowed to participate in the mediation which will help improve the general situation and understanding between editors. I just wanted to ask if my understanding is correct and to give me a formal "go ahead" to enter mediation. ] (]) 19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I see from the comments there that Piotrus thinks that I will be banned (!?) if i participate. My understanding is that I am of course allowed to participate in the mediation which will help improve the general situation and understanding between editors. I just wanted to ask if my understanding is correct and to give me a formal "go ahead" to enter mediation. ] (]) 19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:*Yes, I am excepting from your topic ban all edits required to participate in official mediation proceedings about the topic, subject of course to the condition that you observe all ] in such proceedings. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:18, 16 September 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.
  • 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.


Start a new talk topic


Jingiby

Hello from me Sandstein. I would lik to ask whether this wil remain unsolved? Calling a user with nationalistic names, insults and "clowns" counts at least block. I am very insulted by him and I want a decision, hopefully a right one. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Patience, please. An admin will attend to it eventually, if the matter is found to be actionable.  Sandstein  20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein rocks my socks

(Caveat: I am writing this purely as an individual normal editor.) Misplaced Pages:Discretionary sanctions. You apply KISS and cut the Gordian knot by extending a tried and true method while keeping the matter of logging and appeals extremely simple and straightforward. Bless your heart. Vassyana (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I particularly appreciate this because you, with an arbitrator's experience, probably know better than many others what will work, and what won't, in the field of dispute resolution and rules enforcement.  Sandstein  19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting in the work on the DS policy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing editing restrictions on ANI

It's not hard to get people to agree with those in clear cut cases, e.g. (VG there it's me, I've renamed the account so searching for my name on google doesn't return my wiki user page as 1st hit, but I've preserved my full edit history). I agree that in tag team cases, getting consensus on ANI can be harder, but those cases usually end up before the ArbCom sooner or later because blocks can be contested on ANI as well, and a single admin on the "right" side can undo them, etc. Pcap ping 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2009 Bilderberg Meeting

Lecochonbleu (talk · contribs) created a talk page for this deleted article asking about your very funny comment when closing it. I deleted that and explained that we couldn't have a talk page for a deleted article. The editor then replied on my talk page (and although he's given warnings to people he's pretty confused) and then edited the AfD itself - I'd suggested that he ask you what he'd asked on the now deleted talk page, but again he presumably misunderstood so asked on the AfD. Maybe you could respond to him so we can hopefully end this.Thanks Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  Sandstein  07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me...

...that you are catching a bit of crap on the 'boards just at the moment. I consider that to mean that you are adminning effectively. I may, of course, be wrong - but when do admins ever get told they are doing right? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! You might be on to something there.  Sandstein  14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

user:scuro

As per the arb comm decision Scuro was to have either have found a mentor at this point or have had one appointed. Any possibility of moving forwards on this? ThanksDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an arbitrator or otherwise involved in the case, so I would not know, really. Sorry. I suppose such a question could be asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee or Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests.  Sandstein  04:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at AfD

Thank you for this remark. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding AfD deletion

Dear administrator Sandstein, I am addressing you this way to state that I respectfully disagree with your decision on deleting article Kresimir Chris Kunej. I know bad faith nomination accusations are not fun, but I don't know if you even considered my statements. The fact does stand that editors Drmies (nominator for deletion), Bongomatic (delete voter) and ChildofMidnight are on very good terms. Their Talk pages are full of mutual playful friendly comments, and they award each other medals on a regular basis. They even refer to each other as "Doc", indicating private level acquaintance with each other. User ChildofMidnight page also includes the following: "This user votes Delete regularly for the Article Deletion Squadron. Please join us! An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed and poorly cited, it should also be deleted because we'd rather not fix it. There may be sources out there, somewhere, but there are more useful ways to spend our time. Like deleting articles." What is Misplaced Pages if certain groups can band together and influence it to their desires? It is the duty of administrators to keep that kind of behavior in check.

Regardless, your explanation of deletion was "the author's discourses are much too long to usefully consider in their entirety, and Judo112's keep comment is weakly argued, whereas Drmies's review of the sources, in fine, is persuasive". Do you realize you stated that because keep arguments are too long I do not wish to consider them? This does not seem fair to me. In editor Drmies final comment where he "reviewed the sources", he completely omitted mentioning two newspaper sources in addition to two TV shows, and his comment about sources showing "paid dues to professional organisations" is plain wrong. A source showing membership in an APPOINTED national committee which created profession standards directly shows significant impact. No one disputed WP:PROF criteria that was met. Also, I do not see how you reached a consensus here. You disquilified my discussion because it was too long, omitted editor AMorePerfectOnion's "weak keep" vote, and another editor was made to abstain from voting due to canvassing accusations. Would you kindly take a second look and maybe reconsider the deletion?Turqoise127 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but it does not make me alter my closure. Any association between people arguing "keep" has no impact on the validity of their arguments unless they are WP:CANVASSING each other, of which I see no evidence. Moreover, I do find it fair that unpaid volunteer administrators cannot be reasonably expected to thoroughly evaluate and address (I did read everything you wrote) novel-length arguments. As to Drmies' closing comment, there is no point in re-arguing the merits of the AfD here, which is what any discussion of the actual sources here would entail. Finally, as regards consensus, per WP:DGFA, administrators must determine consensus by evaluating the strength of the arguments expressed in the closure, because deletion discussions are not votes. If you want to appeal my closure, there are instructions for doing so at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kresimir Chris Kunej

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kresimir Chris Kunej. 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. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Sandstein, seems that a mediation process was opened on the Ukrainian-Polish relationships here: . I see from the comments there that Piotrus thinks that I will be banned (!?) if i participate. My understanding is that I am of course allowed to participate in the mediation which will help improve the general situation and understanding between editors. I just wanted to ask if my understanding is correct and to give me a formal "go ahead" to enter mediation. Loosmark (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions Add topic