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

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

I would just like to alert you that, since yesterday, the article has been the target of some rather persistent but dubious non-NPOV editing by single purpose account AnnaInDC (talk · contribs) in conjunction with 68.32.165.254 (talk · contribs), who I suspect to be the same user, logged-out. I have attempted to discuss on the talk pages why I believe the changes are not warranted (thus my rationale for making several reverts), but the arguments are not soundly based, IMHO. Obviously, I am immensely proud to have got the article to FA, and would hate to see it go to the dogs like the other Falun Gong articles, I suspect that the editor will persist if no action is taken. I do not wish to continue reverting for fear of breaching the article probation. Kindly take a look there. If you feel that the current action is as I describe, I would ask you to lock down the article temporarily. Kindly advise (I have posted an identical message on Vassyana's talk page, but I note there is a bug there which prevents it from being displayed). Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for reference. --Asdfg12345 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I know too little about the subject and have too little time to analyze the exchange in depth and advise about who is right in this content dispute. You are right not to revert too much, of course; consider reporting to WP:ANEW in the case of persistent editwarring, or launch a WP:3O to get the opinion of others. Sandstein 06:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users removing declined unblocks

Re this edit: I thought that unblock requests from an expired block could be removed. Unless I was missing something there? Not that I think this user should be unblocked anytime soon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice that. Actually the "unblock reviewed" template advises that it may not be removed while the editor is blocked, whether or not the block is still the same that the template refers to. But still, I guess that means that the block hasn't been reviewed on the merits. I'll remove the talkpage access block and restore the unblock request for others to evaluate, just to ensure procedural fairness. Sandstein 06:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monshuai

You should probably file an ArbCom case on that. So far I see only involved editors posting walls of text at ANI and supporting/opposing the ban. At least the arbitrators signed up for that, and the amount back and forth arguing is limited on ArbCom pages. Pcap ping 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel WP:AE might be a more appropriate place. There already is an Arbitration case covering behavior such as Monshuai's, WP:ARBMAC. If the ANI report loses steam, I would consider moving the whole thing (comments included) to WP:AE. Please advise. Athenean (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't file any ArbCom cases about this. Yes, AE is the appropriate venue, I think. I see a prima facie case for sanctions, and it's easier to cut down on the bickering by involved editors there. Sandstein 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will move it to AE then (the whole thing, including all comments so far). Btw, so far there's around 10 users supporting sanctions, and two against. When is a consensus considered to have been reached? Athenean (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually, so as not to overwhelm AE with the size of this thread, I recommend that you file a standard AE request ({{Sanction enforcement request}}) and include the permalink to the ANI discussion in lieu of evidence. That discussion can then be archived. AE needs no consensus, just one administrator who decides to act. Sandstein 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for telling me. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Athenean (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide a permanent link: [1]. Sandstein 23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I was not following the ANI, a consensus there had developed, I think. It went from 4-3 to 7-3 (counting him too; a little hard to count in all those walls of text, so I could be off). You seem to want to impose sanctions on him. Did you just want a formal report at WP:AE before doing so? All that could be said in this matter was probably said already. Pcap ping 03:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that an admin could choose to apply discretionary sanctions based on the evidence that can be gleaned from the present ANI thread, without taking pains to judge the consensus there. If he did act, then his action would (I assume) be appealable at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pohta ce-am pohtit, please do not assume that I want to do anything. Had I wanted to impose sanctions on Monshuai, I would already have done so, per EdJohnston. But I have not yed had time to review the evidence, and either I or another admin may do so at more leisure in the calmer environment at AE. Sandstein 06:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. (Based on your initial comment on ANI, I had the impression you had already made up your mind.) Pcap ping 08:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accused AGAIN by the Greek editors

Hello Sandstein, After this unjust accusation that I got from Athenean at (User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich) and that Moreschi rejected, I am getting this other one from Alexikoua here (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarandioti). I have been harassed so many times by the Greek editors, it’s not even funny anymore. As an impartial admin could you please intervene? I am really upset and frustrated with their insistance to get me banned from Wikipedia. I am really being harassed by them. Thank you! Sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, let's wait until the WP:SPI concludes. Sandstein 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Je suis tres fatigue's block

The talk page access seems not to be restored. Please check it out.[2]--Arstriker (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Sandstein 16:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation Regarding Balkan Country/History Articles

Hi Sandstein,

Where should a group of editors file a request for uninvolved administrators to form a task group that investigates the disparities in Balkan country/history article ledes? What is the official route to follow?

Also, since you are the person imposing sanctions I would like to know your answers to the cross-examination questions I posed in WP:AE before the proceeding were completed. Thanks.--Monshuai (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]