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.
Kitten
62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Vintagekits unblocked
Hi, Sandstein. I have unblocked Vintagekits. Please see my unblock reason here and in the log. Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
- I note that we disagree with respect to the merits of the block (which, I might add, another administrator endorsed upon review), but my principal concern is that Wikipedia:BP#Unblocking specifies that "except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me why you did not contact me prior to unblocking Vintagekits. Sandstein 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the policy, but a) I don't read "should avoid" as any kind of absolute prohibition—it's certainly broken often enough—and b) I didn't figure you WP:OWNed the blocked status of Vintagekits. A and b are connected, naturally. A counter-question: didn't you think your block was controversial, and ought to have been discussed on ANI before you implemented it? I think you might have tried to see if there was consensus for blocking VK again, after BrownHairedGirl's recent block. It's a principle that users get to blow off a bit of steam on their talkpage while they're blocked; in my opinion, it wouldn't have hurt to apply it to VK the day after his block. He was obviously upset, yet you seem to have gone by the principle of treating him with extra strictness (telling him he's in breach of WP:CIVIL for saying "be quiet"...) rather than cutting him any slack whatsoever. Yes, we do disagree about the merits of your block. I rather doubt a discussion of it between us would have gotten very far; I fear it would simply have eaten up those 24 hours. But if you disapprove strongly of my IAR, perhaps you'd like to take my action to WP:ANI or WP:RFAR Bishonen | talk 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
- Yes, I disapprove strongly. I do not believe in cutting anyone any slack whatsoever with respect to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, under any but the most exceptional circumstances. This is because these policies are fundamental necessities in any collaborative endeavour. Vintagekit in particular, given his block log for similar conduct, gets a strongly negative amount of slack from me. You are, of course, free to disagree with this, but I am disappointed that you chose to do so in a very uncollegial fashion by means of an unilateral unblock, thereby contributing to creating an environment more conducive to personal attacks and incivility. I will seek the community's input on both of our actions in this matter on WP:ANI. Sandstein 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please consider encouraging these "fundamental necessities" by modelling them rather than by brute force (=blocks); that's policy, too.[1] I'm sorry to hear you're determined to expose particular individuals to "a strongly negative amount of slack". I do understand that your intentions in this are good, but such selectiveness seems, to me, in practice neither fair nor humane. Please reconsider, Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
- I do try to set an example, of course (did I not, at some point?) but I do not think that you, as a longtime administrator, seriously believe that this is all we need to do and that consequently nobody should ever be blocked in order to stop continued disruption. What I meant with cutting negative slack is that users who have received many blocks for incivility and similar disruption, as Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, are assumed to know that this community (and you too, I hope) does not appreciate such conduct, and consequently do not need to be warned prior to a civility block. This manner of proceeding strikes me as neither selective nor unfair.
- You will have noticed that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for community review of Vintagekit's block and unblock, most commentators agree with my block and almost all disagree with your out-of-process-unblock. I would like to ask you to agree that you will, in the future, adhere to our blocking policy and "except in cases of unambiguous error ... avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them", which notably means not performing unilateral unblocks such as these. Sandstein 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read that discussion again and check whether it specifically supports what you say. To me it looks as if there was a consensus that your block wasn't particularly good, overshadowed by a stronger consensus that Bishonen's unblock was bad. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I might have phrased it better, yes. The editors supporting the block are Nja247, ThuranX and Chillum. On the other hand, Tznkai, LessHeard vanU and John think it was a debatable block. Nobody unequivocally disagrees with the block. At any rate, I would still appreciate a reply by Bishonen. Sandstein 20:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh dear, and after claiming you're "not interested in vindication"? I won't make any such undertaking, sorry. The reason I didn't attempt a discussion before unblocking was past experience: my conviction that nothing positive could come out of it, per the reasons you gave for blocking Giano recently—in fact the least informative block reasons I've ever seen, "res ipsa loquitur", and "if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is" (and these only after being pressed for reasons, yet). You were then away from the computer, with a parting admonition that any unblocker find consensus first (and, again, they would have had 24 hours to find it.) And, again, I totally disagreed with the block and the block reason. Did you go by Giano's block log rather than by what was actually going on at the time, as you did with Vintagekits? (This is an example only. There was no question of myself unblocking Giano, since he's a friend of mine. But it made an impression on me.) To summarize, I believe the practicalities—the 24 hours and your own preconceived opinions—would have completely prevented me from unblocking Vintagekits, once I entered the quagmire of arguing with you. I may find myself in a similar situation again; therefore, I will not make the undertaking you request. You may not think so, Sandstein, but I go by a set of ethics, just as you do; I will do what I believe in. Wikipedia is a kind of collective animal, where the community is very important; but the community's interest in your request for review has been limited. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
- Thank you for the reply, at least, even though it is rather amusing to read your preconceived opinion about what you assume, judging from an unrelated case, to be my preconceived opinion in this one. I do think you acted in good faith, but also with exceptionally poor judgment, and am somewhat surprised that you have not taken the community's opinion regarding your action to heart. You may also mistake me in another point: In my administrative duties, unlike you, I do not seek to do what I "believe in", but what the rules we have agreed on command. Sandstein 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh dear, and after claiming you're "not interested in vindication"? I won't make any such undertaking, sorry. The reason I didn't attempt a discussion before unblocking was past experience: my conviction that nothing positive could come out of it, per the reasons you gave for blocking Giano recently—in fact the least informative block reasons I've ever seen, "res ipsa loquitur", and "if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is" (and these only after being pressed for reasons, yet). You were then away from the computer, with a parting admonition that any unblocker find consensus first (and, again, they would have had 24 hours to find it.) And, again, I totally disagreed with the block and the block reason. Did you go by Giano's block log rather than by what was actually going on at the time, as you did with Vintagekits? (This is an example only. There was no question of myself unblocking Giano, since he's a friend of mine. But it made an impression on me.) To summarize, I believe the practicalities—the 24 hours and your own preconceived opinions—would have completely prevented me from unblocking Vintagekits, once I entered the quagmire of arguing with you. I may find myself in a similar situation again; therefore, I will not make the undertaking you request. You may not think so, Sandstein, but I go by a set of ethics, just as you do; I will do what I believe in. Wikipedia is a kind of collective animal, where the community is very important; but the community's interest in your request for review has been limited. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
- I might have phrased it better, yes. The editors supporting the block are Nja247, ThuranX and Chillum. On the other hand, Tznkai, LessHeard vanU and John think it was a debatable block. Nobody unequivocally disagrees with the block. At any rate, I would still appreciate a reply by Bishonen. Sandstein 20:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read that discussion again and check whether it specifically supports what you say. To me it looks as if there was a consensus that your block wasn't particularly good, overshadowed by a stronger consensus that Bishonen's unblock was bad. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please consider encouraging these "fundamental necessities" by modelling them rather than by brute force (=blocks); that's policy, too.[1] I'm sorry to hear you're determined to expose particular individuals to "a strongly negative amount of slack". I do understand that your intentions in this are good, but such selectiveness seems, to me, in practice neither fair nor humane. Please reconsider, Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
- Yes, I disapprove strongly. I do not believe in cutting anyone any slack whatsoever with respect to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, under any but the most exceptional circumstances. This is because these policies are fundamental necessities in any collaborative endeavour. Vintagekit in particular, given his block log for similar conduct, gets a strongly negative amount of slack from me. You are, of course, free to disagree with this, but I am disappointed that you chose to do so in a very uncollegial fashion by means of an unilateral unblock, thereby contributing to creating an environment more conducive to personal attacks and incivility. I will seek the community's input on both of our actions in this matter on WP:ANI. Sandstein 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the policy, but a) I don't read "should avoid" as any kind of absolute prohibition—it's certainly broken often enough—and b) I didn't figure you WP:OWNed the blocked status of Vintagekits. A and b are connected, naturally. A counter-question: didn't you think your block was controversial, and ought to have been discussed on ANI before you implemented it? I think you might have tried to see if there was consensus for blocking VK again, after BrownHairedGirl's recent block. It's a principle that users get to blow off a bit of steam on their talkpage while they're blocked; in my opinion, it wouldn't have hurt to apply it to VK the day after his block. He was obviously upset, yet you seem to have gone by the principle of treating him with extra strictness (telling him he's in breach of WP:CIVIL for saying "be quiet"...) rather than cutting him any slack whatsoever. Yes, we do disagree about the merits of your block. I rather doubt a discussion of it between us would have gotten very far; I fear it would simply have eaten up those 24 hours. But if you disapprove strongly of my IAR, perhaps you'd like to take my action to WP:ANI or WP:RFAR Bishonen | talk 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
Arb Enf: Matthead
Thanks for taking the time and making a fair decision.radek (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Happy Sandstein's Day!
 |
User:Sandstein has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Sandstein 05:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI
FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have no opinion on the problem as such, I just once attempted to close a discussion with what I perceived to be consensus on the issue. Sandstein 05:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need for protection, Sandstein. The reverting had stopped, and I posted an RfC, which people are responding to. Did someone request protection? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, about an hour ago NoCal100 and Ceedjee were still reverting each other. But as soon we have documented agreement on the talk page, I'll of course lift the protection. Sandstein 17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein,
That was a wise decision.
Thank you for this. Ceedjee (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not object, but think this discussion should have been together with the other conversation on the noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sandstein, could you unprotect now, please, so that normal editing may resume? The RfC continues on talk, and no one is going to start reverting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think the protection has expired. Sandstein 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Half-Life: Uplink (film)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Half-Life: Uplink (film). 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. 86.149.60.116 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)