User talk:Sandstein

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: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Nareg510

I have unblocked Nareg510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He says he's through editwarring, and I'd like to give him a chance to try again. Fred Talk 00:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, ok, but you are aware that this is Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a banned sockpuppeteer? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask Glen (talk · contribs), the admin who banned the sockmaster account, and unblock that account? And possibly ask for community consensus first, because this is a longtime disruption issue?  Sandstein  06:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think such discussions would be futile. Clearly a puppet-master with over 200 socks should NEVER be unblocked. However, provided I monitor his editing, I see little prospect for harm, other than to my reputation, to give him a brief trial. Fred Talk 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally jump into discussions like this, but this caught my eye, and I noticed that Glen's block was in January 2007 and Glen has made 10 edits in 2009. Last edit on 7 August 2009. Surely that should be taken into account when advising someone to "contact the blocking admin"? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, of course, I didn't check that. Though since this is a longterm disruption issues, there ought to be plenty of previously involved admins around who are active.  Sandstein  05:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Nareg510 --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at AE: [1] I don't think that ethnic attacks like this should be tolerated in wiki: [2] Thanks. Grandmaster 07:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the topic bans

I am still shocked that this is seriously considered, but could you considered commenting on this? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not really in a position to comment on this, because I am not privy to the evidence on which the proposed topic ban is based. If the Committee does adopt such a wide topic ban, I expect them to have good reasons for it.  Sandstein  06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Milarepa, Pango Chorten, Gyantse .JPG

Hi! Yes, it does seem a bit strange at first that he has his left hand up - the usual portrayal is with the right hand to his right ear. Anyway, I had a look through my old photos tonight and all the other ones that I can check from that roll seem to be correctly orientated, so I assume this one is too. My wife says she remembers remarking on the unusual portrayal at the time - but this was many yearsa ago now and I must admit I cannot remember.

I have also been looking through numerous other portrayals of Milarepa in my library and on the internet tonight and have so far only found two others portraying him with his left hand up. They may be rare, but at least they do seem to exist. These two images may be accessed at: http://www.kagyu-asia.com/lineage/milarepa_life/milarepa_m1_2.jpg and http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/images/milarepa.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/links.htm&usg=__reCXBXc9bn3vvhLoQb4ZOUc-z8U=&h=133&w=131&sz=7&hl=en&start=441&sig2=cUKZpCowZwfiKcA67dlyFQ&um=1&tbnid=eGRZ2TLUXsdMrM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmilarepa%2Bimages%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D432%26um%3D1&ei=e7-0SpT9FIqKtAP2t_HRDA

I think it is a bit much to suggest it is an insult to show him with his hand up to his left ear (it certainly was not deliberate on my part and I doubt, from what I have read of Milarepa, that he would have been offended) and, aside from returning to Gyantse to check, I don't really know what to do. If I can contact a friend of mine who is a very well-known Tibetan painter, I will ask him his opinion about the iconographic implications (if any). Hope this is of some help. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh

Sandstein, I object to your close on this as I would like to see another checkuser confirm with certainty that this was Nickhh. It is not clear why this check was run in the first place, and considering that Nickhh denies it was him, as well as that the ip also shows random vandalism, there should be more evaluation than from just one person. The discussion should be reopened for another checkuser to review, at least. Mackan79 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am reopening the thread, so as to allow another checkuser to evaluate the evidence. Meanwhile, Nickhh can appeal his block through the usual channels.  Sandstein  17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you may have seen I just commented to Brandon asking if he would clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewed this again, and appreciate your leaving it open while I was away. Seeing Brandon's explanation and Deskana's confirmation, that's good enough for me. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight

I'm inclined to honor his unblock request. Our current President is going to be mentioned in hundreds of articles. When one editor decides to add his name to an article, it does not automatically make it Obama-related. Should Kanye West be off limits as well because the President referred to him as a 'jackass?' Where are you going to draw the line here? Besides, the length of the block seems vindictive. Law _{type! snype?} 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment. I think however you were acting in good faith as well. I do not know if you have a prior history with COM however this raises a few issues that need to be cleared up to avoid a repeat of the preceding. Would an Obama block extend to all politics? For example Obama is heavily involved with health care. Arbcom and whoever should confer to the limits of the restrictions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with both your assertion, Law, and with your out of process unblock (and Obama is not my president; I'm European). The topic ban covers "Obama-related articles ... broadly construed", my emphasis, and this organization seems to relate to Obama in a politically significant way. I also do not know what you mean by "vindictive", as I do not know what I am supposed to be vengeful about against ChildofMidnight. (Hell in a Bucket, I am not aware of any prior history with ChildofMidnight, though it is possible - I didn't check - that I sanctioned him previously for something or other.)

Law, I ask you to please reinstate the block of ChildofMidnight (at the maximum permitted length of a week, as correctly pointed out by Evil Saltine), or I will request arbitration with respect to your interference with the enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions.  Sandstein  06:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully ask for arbitration. I stand by my action, and will be fully accountable for it. There are about seven different paths you could have taken. You could have gone to CoM directly, and discussed the merits of him editing his article. You could have called in a third opinion. You could have gone to the committee which set the topic ban, and discussed whether or not ACORN was an Obama-related article. If so, you could have simply asked CoM to stop. Instead your actions indicate that there was a dire need to give him a template and a thirty-day vacation. I believe you applied this block as arbitrarily as you did the block length. If it is so important to you that CoM spend a week thinking about his behavior, you will simply have to make good on your promise to take me to ArbCom for interference. I'm an adult and I won't take it personally. Law _{type! snype?} 06:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Law, what you say makes some sense, but it needs to be put in the context of Arbitration enforcement. It is a difficult area to begin with, and generally speaking these enforcement doctrines are created because of extensive and long reaching problems. This is designed to lower the threshold and tolerances given to users. At the very least, it is best if you announce these intentions on the relevant arbitration enforcement threads.--Tznkai (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been nice to announce the intention to block, rather than my intention to unblock? At least that way it wouldn't have resulted in a block that exceeds what is policy. Law _{type! snype?} 06:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement blocks, more so than blocks in general, do not normally require prior consensus or discussion, because the merits of the case have already been through arbitration. As to the block length error, I'm sorry about that and would of course have corrected it had I been given the opportunity.  Sandstein  06:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But I don't see the problem with discussion. In fact, I think only AC can decide if this is truly a breach of the ban. We clearly disagree with how it is applied, which often happens with a 'broad' interpretation. I know the history of ACORN (we are having serious problems here in California), and it was created nearly 40 years before Obama was in office. While that is not the greatest rationale, it does explain why I think that the US President will be involved in many aspects, such as the Kanye incident, but that doesn't necessarily mean the ban was meant to prevent CoM from editing all articles, even if they are tangents. Law _{type! snype?} 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is incumbent upon administrators enforce arbitral decisions, which means that they have to decide whether an edit constitutes a violation or not, and as I said, in an arbitration enforcement context the time for discussion is usually long over. Whether or not my block was correct, though, you have no excuse for unilaterally undoing what was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action. Please reinstate the block at once and seek community consensus at AE or ANI about whether or not it was correct; if consensus does not support a block of one week, I will of course lift it.  Sandstein  06:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Law, I think the evidence will show that Sandstein has been nothing but tireless in working AE to the best of his ability and fairness. Any criticism of him, however fair or unfair should be within that context. Likewise, Sandstein, we get very little out of insisting anything out of our fellow volunteer admins to do, or undo anything, and focusing on procedure at this point is impractical.

In the case on point, procedurally, Sandstein is absolutely correct. It is the nature of arbitration enforcement that administrators are left to figure out for themselves what arbcom meant, the thresholds are low, and the decisions can be very quick. However, I think there is a legitimate argument that ACORN, while obviously in the same political football field, is not sufficiently within the logical reach of Obama related articles to have constituted fair warning for CoM. Is there somewhere we can come to an agreement?--Tznkai (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot block an editor when there is no certainty that he did anything wrong. It sends a poor message to him. And I do have an excuse - I used my tools to honor an unblock request. This idea that he should be blocked until a decision is made is foreign to me. It is the presumption of guilt, as well as prevention from allowing him to participate in an obviously impending ANI request. Law _{type! snype?} 07:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM has had plenty of poor behavior, as you yourself have noted, so this isn't an issue of has CoM done something wrong. Editing a political football like ACORN by including a White House statement, and then posting a lengthy screed instead of a simple common sense defense when called out on it, all the while under a topic ban after an ugly arbitration case is quite frankly, self destructive. I am far more interested, and hope the two of you are equally interested, in practical questions of effectiveness, and general questions of fairness.

Again, all of these discussions can take place, and should have taken place, on AE. Aside from the basic fairness and politeness involved to your fellow administrators, it is way more useful to have the discussion where many eyes are likley watching. Furthermore, unblocking without discussing at some length the blocking admin tends to lead to drama, especially when arbitration enforcement is involved. Of course, the administrator so affronted shouldn't really get all that worked up about it either - its just a damned website, and its just a block.

Is there anyway I can get people to agree in principle that discussing such blocks amicably on AE would have been better?--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, especially that any discussion about the propriety of my action should have taken place at AE. Because it has not, though, I have now requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight.  Sandstein  07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I just fixed my rather stupid error above, so let me reiterate more clearly, lets not get worked up over something this trivial.--Tznkai (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel particularly worked up, but I would like to find out whether it is worth spending any more of my time at AE. That would not be the case if the ArbCom agrees that administrative actions taken in the enforcement of its decisions can be undone on a whim.  Sandstein  07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They obviously can be. Whether they should is an entirely different discussion, and whether someone should go through arbitration to find out is still another separate gigantic can of worms. Regardless of whether you feel worked up or not, arbitration is the Wikipedia bench mark for making a big deal out of something. Let me make it easier on you, please. Stop responding to AE. Let others take care of it - or maybe they won't. Either way, it isn't your job.--Tznkai (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no reason that anyone should get worked up about this. We obviously have two editors, who happen to be administrators, differing over what the topic ban may or may not include. I am all for letting AC set this right, as I do not feel that I am the best candidate to interpret their ban in the first place. While I am clearly not enthusiastic about going in front of ARBCOM, it was the right thing to do because only they can elaborate on this broad topic ban. There are no hard feelings on my part, and no getting worked up. Law _{type! snype?} 08:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

to clarify my part......Sr. Sandstein I wasn't alleging you have a past with Child of Midnite, just to acknowledge if you did I was unfamiliar with it. I think that this subject should go to ARBCOM. As stated earlier to Edit anything obama related is a stretch right now. I urge you to go to the AZrbcom and ask for a clarificaiton as to the limits. I can see your points but Law has great points too. The only way Acorn and Obama are connected is from the accusation from last years presidential race. But to extend an Obama block to everything political would be a tad too extreme, everyone of our laws will be signed by our president......doesn't mean the article is about him.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword and RFAR

Does Reword remove other people's statements? (Scroll down.) Looks like a simple mistake, but wanted to let you know in case it was the script. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That was certainly the script. I'll report the bug and re-add the statement; thanks.  Sandstein  13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Sandstein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unban of user Ararat arev (talk · contribs). Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=314696358 Would you be so kind to answer?Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I did.  Sandstein  10:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have missed your answer.

In another words, you Xx236 are guilty, because you are weak. Thank you for this explanation of Wikipedia ethics.Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me.  Sandstein  11:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To me either. You have done twice what S. had wanted. He rewrites articles, removes POV tags and I have no right to oppose. This Wikipedia is more and more an anti-Polish forum. I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but where can I protest agaisnt discriminations if Cabala is a wrong place? Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for feuding

Sandstein, this diff makes me feel concerned that you are engaged in a feud with KillerChihuahua and Giano (who are known to be friends). Please back away from this situation and stop lobbying for blocks of your political opponents. This will be best for all concerned. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not in a feud with anybody, and I do not believe that I have any political opponents. If an admin reinstates disruption by others, that admin should be blocked for disruption himself. Why do you believe that no action should be taken against obvious personal attacks such as the one that triggered my block?  Sandstein  12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Our goal is to prevent disruption, not cause more disruption. Have some tea and think about that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe that [[3] reinstating personal attacks] is a proper thing for admins to do?  Sandstein  12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Join me for WP:TEA. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back. You've now twice erased others' comments [4][5] while trying to fix edit conflicts. That's a good indication that's it's time for tea and cookies. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the second time I fixed an inadvertent comment removal by the other user. Seems to be a bug of some sort. I'm available for tea whenever you are - I have no wish to engage in a conflict with you or anybody else.  Sandstein  12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the feud here. I understand, as does everyone, that blocks of Giano can be controversial - partly because there have been some poor blocks in the past, and partly for other reasons. This doesn't mean he should be immune to blocks, however, and any blocks should be evaluated under the same criteria as those placed on any other user. Whether this block is appropriate or not (haven't expressed an opinion on that) should be evaluated on its own merits, not its potential for being a "drama bomb." Nathan ^T 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My own policy is to ask before blocking if I think there will be serious controversy. If you need to ask for a block review, ask before, not after. If Giano is too controversial to block, so be it. Ask ArbCom to come up with a resolution. They've fobbed their responsibility off on the community numerous times in the past. Ask them to deal with this. Don't go lighting drama bombs. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)