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

Greyfriars, London

Please do not delete valid articles. Even a moment's research on the subject would have shown it was a valid article and deleting it damaged Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CSD#G5, pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are deleted, whatever their merits may be. This is required in order to enforce our banning policy. In particular, per WP:BAN:

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. (...)

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."

I also note that you have characterized my reversal of the banned user's edits at [1] as "vandalism". Moreover, your out of process undeletion of this article and restoration of the banned editor's edits violates the banning policy and the deletion policy. This conduct is unbecoming an administrator, and I ask you to re-delete the article and content added by the banned user. Otherwise, I intend to request that you be sanctioned for proxying on behalf of a banned user.  Sandstein  14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Exercising some basic competence or discretion would have shown the article was valid; hiding behind CSD#G5 will not change that. Also I didn't simply characterise your edits as "vandalism", but "vandalism or mindless, sloppy editing". As you seem to be slavishly following red tape rather than showing any of your own thought, I'm leaning towards the latter. The article stays. Do what you feel red tape compels you to do, but it will be damaging the encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, may I please ask you to notify user:Gatoclass about Arbitration decision on the articles related to I/P conflict and log it in here? user:Gatoclass is involved in editing those articles as well as preventing their DYK promotion. The user inserts POV in the articles. Here's only one example Please see the name of the section "1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" while the main article's name is: "1982 Lebanon War". Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, sorry, that looks like a content dispute to me. I don't see the purpose of going into such detail about the war in an article about casualty ratios, but that is a disagreement that should be resolved by editorial interaction. On its own, that edit is not misconduct and doesn't warrant a warning.  Sandstein  18:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean it as a warning. It is my understanding that all editors involved in editing I/P conflict articles should be notified, but if my understanding is wrong, he probably should have been notified back in April for his conduct (or rather misconduct) on removing DYK hook on I/P conflict article from a Queue. Remember you advised and he was not happy about this? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Notified", as used in that case log, is not the proper term. What matters is the text of the remedy, which uses "warning". Per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, editors may be sanctioned "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". This means that a warning, as provided for by that provision, is only proper as a response to such misconduct. This means that, no, not every user editing in that topic area needs to be warned. A warning now for possible misconduct in April would not be appropriate: if there have been no more problems of this sort since April, a warning is no longer required.  Sandstein  19:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I now found the template used to notify the users.This template itself is explicit that it is not a "warning", it says "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." So I still cannot understand why you call this notification a "warning". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1. If the template is even inline with the decision has been discussed. Notification as you are requesting is not even needed since Gatoclass is demonstrably aware of the case with his comments at AE in the past.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, you've probably realised that this relates to a current AE case brought against Jalapenos do exist, but, in case you haven't, here it is.     ←   ZScarpia   20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I've taken AE off my watchlist.  Sandstein  20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Comrade

I thank you for the welcome you have given me and appreciate the links and offers given.

I hope to help add to Wikipedia's "pool of human knowledge" and to "patrol" in order to correct errors in format/syntax and prevent/undo vandalism of articles.

I'm currently looking for images of Sicherman dice to improve its article and would appreciate any help in my search.

Again, thanks for the kind words and may the Force be with you.

Projects(Talk)

QtheAllmighty 17:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Arno Elias

Dear Sandstein,

your reasons of the deletion of my article about the artist Arno Elias are not accurate..i advice you to make more search before concluding to this deletion. or even your speedy deletion?? this is one of hundreds of evidence i found and with all due respect i do not think that you will know better about the music industry than MTV..MTV UK Link: http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/arno-elias
also please read the Notability required by wikipedia, please read article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music), best regards, Stephane B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3robinpuma (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please make these arguments in the deletion discussion. A brief mention on a TV channel website does not suffice for notability.  Sandstein  07:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for my over-linking and use of unnecessary links in certain articles and thank you for your warnings. QtheAllmighty 18:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (Talk)

No apologies are required, we all have to begin somewhere! Best regards,  Sandstein  18:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Query

With regards to this, combined with a pattern of DRVs that appear to be a waste of the community's time, do you think that an RFC would be the next step? -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the problem with these WP:HEAR DRVs has some relation to the problems highlighted at the RFAR, or if these problems continue. I haven't checked either.  Sandstein  17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of my attempt to address the matter? -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable proposal, and it would be great if MickMacNee were to agree to it.  Sandstein  17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. We shall see what the response will be. Hopefully it will lead to an amicable resolution. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately, not even polite comments do not seem to work. What we're seeing here is a total refusal to "get the point". HeyMid (contribs) 18:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)