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

Banning Faustnh

Sandstein, In connection with my recent interest in the article on Society, I discovered that Faustnh had contributed to work on the definition. His suggestions were clearly posted on the talk page and he waited until he believed there were no objections before altering the intro (for the better I may say). I was therefore very surprised that you had banned him indefinitely for the changes he made to the subcategories of Technology. In my opinion, this was experimental work by a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. He probably had no idea of the potential damage they could cause. They should of course have been deleted - as they were. I am however rather upset that a non-native English speaker (like yourself?) was banned indefinitely for this offense although he repeated several times on his talk page that he would no longer work on categories. Would it not have been a little bit more encouraging to give him some idea of the extent of banning in the hope that he could return to the flock? I am now in the position where I cannot even discuss his changes on Wikipedia - which is a pity. Best, -Ipigott (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks are not infinite. They last only as long as the problem that caused them. Faustnh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not yet made a request to be unblocked. If he makes one, I am inclined to grant it provided that he shows that he understands the problem and won't engage in similar disruption again, as described at User talk:Faustnh#July 2009. As long as he does not even request to be unblocked, I see no grounds for doing so.  Sandstein  18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible outing

Sandstein - could you please check out the Talk:Sheldon, Derbyshire page? I believe there are some WP:OUTING issues, and at the very least some WP:BLP violations....I would start cleaning it up myself, but perhaps the words of an admin would carry a stronger message? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the individual has self reverted the threat as listed here and on their talk page here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it. By outing, do you mean the statement that "it is highly likely that the users maxkohanzad and pippie langkous are one and the same person"? That's not WP:OUTING, IMHO, just a speculation about sockpuppetry. Comparing user names is not the same thing as asserting that Pippie Langkous (talk · contribs)'s real name is so-and-so. Private names are personal information, but usernames are not.  Sandstein  18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is a bit long and agitated. Could you please provide the diffs of what you believe are BLP violations? Best,  Sandstein  18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it seemed to suggest that Pippie Langkous (talk · contribs) was insinuating that User: A scanner lightly was the "Mr. Herbert" that she discusses and maligns. Both users seem to be pointing fingers at each other and making various accusations on the talk page, so if nothing else there appears to be a major conflict of interest. Dif where Pippi notes "his integrity is questioned" and alleges that she has a documents to prove it, and again here with threatening to expose a parish member wherein A scanner lightly had previously mentioned being a member of the parish committee. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the paragraph from the talk page and left a BLP warning. Per WP:BLP, making unsourced derogatory assertions about living persons is prohibited everywhere on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, I'm not sure how I ended up so mixed up in the entire debacle. There's certainly trouble a brewin' in the village of Sheldon, Derbyshire! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole dispute is kinda weird...it's between two users in a town of 60 people...wanna bet they know each other IRL? MirrorLockup (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they need to head on over to the Cock & Pullet and hash out their differences over a pint. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:User:Pippie Langkous has inserted an unsourced paragraph regarding another controversy just as she said she would prior to your warning. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I've warned both all three single purpose accounts to drop it. Let's see. If they continue to edit-war in that village article, I may block them both.  Sandstein  20:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, to be a fly on the wall at the next parish council meeting. I'm sure they all know who's who within this particular group....Thanks for all your help, I no longer feel like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dam. (Originally spelled as "dame" by accident, which is much funnier but hardly appropriate).Cheers again, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this article subject even notable?? I've had nagging doubts since I wrote the 3O, but I don't like to start AfDs unless I'd definitely !vote delete... MirrorLockup (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, consensus is that all inhabited settlements are notable.  Sandstein  20:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could have another look at the page please, I'm getting rather bored of the tit-for-tat :( Cheers --A scanner lightly (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to keep the article on an even keel, but seem to have a problem with multiple undo/redos; any help would be appreciated in mediating this --A scanner lightly (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, what would you like me to do? Reverting is never the solution to an editing dispute, see WP:EW and WP:DR.  Sandstein  20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing other than keeping an eye on things as yesterday; discussion regarding this topic doesn't seem to be gong anywhere quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A scanner lightly (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

BluefieldWV

Hi Sandstein, I noticed that you blocked BluefieldWV for edit warring at Anthony Watts page. I don't believe in edit warring, for the simple reason that it's a waste of time. That said, WP:BLP clearly states that it trumps the 3RR policy in this situation:

Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.

A number of editors have finally agreed that this was a very obvious violation of NOR and others have agreed that it failed NPOV and was intended to diminish Watts' credibility.

Thus it seems to me that if editors are going to be blocked where the BLP states clearly that they 3RR doesn't apply, then we need to actually remove that wording from the BLP policy.

What are your thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide internal links to the relevant articles and user talk pages?  Sandstein  08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, User_talk:BluefieldWV and Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger) and here is the BLP/N discussion. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not I who blocked BluefieldWV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I just declined his unblock request. He is free to make another. If you want the block to be lifted, you need to talk to the blocking admin. My views about the block are expressed in the edit declining the unblock request: if content is not an obvious BLP violation, any disagreements about it are to be resolved through discussion (including on appropriate noticeboards), not through edit warring.  Sandstein  08:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you were the blocking admin. Anyhow, I still feel there's a big gap between what was originally intended in the BLP policy, and in what is actually practiced here. I have also been threatened with blocks by administrators for insisting that potential BLP problems stay out of the article until consensus is reached on the BLP dispute. That is, very clearly, what the policy states. And there is no reference anywhere to "obviousness" (unless it's hidden inside a related policy I don't know about). In any case, to me, the dispute that is now resolved was indeed a very obvious BLP violation: text was being added to an article on the basis of support from non-existent statements in a self-published website FAQ. But the point is not to argue over whether or not it was indeed obvious, but merely to point out that what is obvious to the blocking the admin will almost certainly not be obvious to the editor who sees a BLP violation. Finally, I should note that I doubt that any violations of BLP policy are "obvious" to all. If they were obvious, the editor inserting the material would likely be treated as vandalism and quickly banned. So to maintain Wikipedia's credibility, the policy should be changed to match what is actually practiced here. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be a discussion for WP:BLP, I think.  Sandstein  21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DaBiGg3tFcUkiNiTaLiaNo

Hi, just a note re. your unblocking of DaBiGg3tFcUkiNiTaLiaNo (talk · contribs) - I have concerns that, despite this appearing to be a genuine request to change name and behave, I have doubts - due to their first edit being unusual [1], and their demonstated knowledge of templates [2] [3].

I'm not sure if you noticed that Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) had declined the unblock [4], so I just wanted to make sure you were aware.

Prior to the unblock, I'd spoken a little about this in User talk:Nihonjoe#Konbanwa. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Commenting at Nihonjoes's, thanks.  Sandstein  20:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Nepaheshgar/ChrisO

The whole thing disgusts me, having read it again. It gives ammo to those who say that Wikipedia is run for the benefit of a favored few. Thank you for throwing some sanity into the mix.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is (or was) certainly a very strange dispute.  Sandstein  12:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Alzheimer's editor

I opened an ANI thread here about our little ranter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there.  Sandstein  16:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's starting to snow at the afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. As the nominator, I may not close it, though. Some admin will do it eventually.  Sandstein  16:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gone and gone. (Obviously, I didn't do it; I was once voted "Least likely good-faith editor to be an admin"). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

HPJoker

I'm just wondering why are you unconvinced? 67.162.133.18 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being unbiased. The level of partisanship was really disgusting. As what I can see a neutral admin, I urge you to review my contribution to the article of contention and tell me if I violated any of the wikipedia guidelines. Because as far as I can see (see also my comment on the talk section), I did not. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the other two users asked for a pardon of their block. One of them has been here since 2005! and had never done anything wrong! His record is (or was) clean till now. The normal procedure would have been a lock on the article, Rfc and Mediation. Not an indefinite block for content dispute. However, if I go to adress this injustice it will be a waste of my time. But you as a neutral person can see the damage this does to wikipedia's image. What is interesting was that another admin tried to keep my block based on "copy right violation" (which I addressed and several admins agreed it was not). The second admin said: "Decline reason: "The block is fully justified by your disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge the problem." None of them gave me a good reason. I might be wrong, but my feelings tell me that they were proxying and etc. This is some serious corruption and I think this is sort of corruption will hurt Wikipedia's long term image much more than anything else. Anyhow, I thank you for your neutrality and that is why I invited you (if you feel like or have the time) to let me know if I had made any mistakes in that article that warranted an indefinite ban. Someone violates a core policy and gets 2 minute and someone just users the talkpage and does not make a main page and gets an indefinite ban. For me that was not logical and since I believe you are neutral, I thought if you have time, you might go through it. Thank you --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should also be grateful if you would review this matter; I do not care to be even hinted as being a proxy or otherwise being involved in a content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are a proxy for anything, LessHeard vanU, but could you review the unblock request at User talk:Xashaiar#Requesting again? He's promised to observe 1RR indefinitely about that Cyrus Cylinder, and I can't see a good reason to keep him blocked now.  Sandstein  06:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Being on UK time I have enacted the above unblock, since I am content with the editors undertaking, rather than wait for us to synchronise. I trust this is agreeable. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked Arad without restriction based on his regret and blocks are not punitive. I have declined Nepaheshgar's request to review the edits in question, no one appointed me a judge in content disputes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal wrt Russavia

I made a proposal to weaken Russavia's topic ban, subject to some over sight at the ArbCom case Proposed Decisions page here [5]. Since you're the one who originally topic banned him, just letting you know. That's all.radek (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before Russavia's being sucked into (my perception, particularly regarding their Estonia edits) Offliner's and PasswordUsername's attack mentality, I've already observed that Russavia was once focused on being a constructive editor. I have no objection to, for example, Russavia's Australia-Russia relations article. It just needs a few tweaks regarding Whitlam's recognition of USSR sovereignty over the Baltics, later withdrawn. Russavia did state they are content to wait out the topic ban when I offered that under better circumstances I would have assisted in seeing his article content posted during his topic ban. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)