User talk:Josve05a

Wikipedia ads	file info – #69

This is Josve05a's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Josve05a.

This is not a forum. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Assume good faith

Avoid personal attacks

For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Archives

Archives by month Archive Map Year 2010 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2011 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2013 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2014 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2015 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2016 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2017 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2018 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2019 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2020 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2021 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2022 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Misc. Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as User talk:Josve05a/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb. Template:DailyBracketBot

Unless I missed it...

The Teamwork awards could well be handled now. Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh Gosh Golly. I forgot about those... (t) Josve05a (c) 08:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! (t) Josve05a (c) 08:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Way cool. Thanks for finishing the job. Fiddle Faddle 08:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For making a quick save

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for simply noticing random disruption and handling it promptly without even being asked to do so. If we had a few hundred more of you, we could clean up a lot more disruptive edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Thank you! Always nice with some encouragement. I only try to help out the best I can. Can't do more than that. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)ß

Happy Halloween!!!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement alert: Eastern Europe

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Hi, I'm alerting you about the existence of discretionary sanctions because you have expressed an interest in editing Polandball, an Eastern Europe-related topic that has previously been the subject of conflict. Regards,  Sandstein  10:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no intrest of editing the article(s) themself (unless consensus is given), so no worries. But I however feel like that this "template"-message is a little {{uw-dttr}}... (t) Josve05a (c) 11:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the officious template, but procedure mandates that I use this exact template for such an alert. Also, just to avoid confusion, it is not in fact possible to revoke such an alert, contrary to what Nick says below.  Sandstein  13:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't issue enforcement action concerning an article that has yet to be created or undeleted, and anyway, you can no longer deal with any enforcement action as you yourself are now subject to discretionary sanctions. The correct course of action is for you to both remove the template and to apologise for the chilling behaviour shown towards Josve05a. Nick (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nick, you may want to read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, because it seems to me that you may not be up to date regarding that procedure. Everyone is always subject to discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas, in the sense that an admin may impose such sanctions in the case of misconduct. The purpose of such an alert is only to make people aware of that possibility, which (as the template specifies) implies no misconduct on the part of the recipient. Receiving such an alert (superfluously, I may add), has no impact on my ability to take any further admin actions. Sorry, Josve05a, for misusing your talk page to respond here, but this may be of interest to you also.  Sandstein  13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of what WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts says. I worry when I read the Role of administrators section if you do, however. Please read this section and explain how you believe your behaviour today is acceptable and in line with policy. I consider you immediately failing the test under Clause 1 - [administrators must not] impose a sanction when involved; as you clearly are. You deleted the original article which I consider immediately rules you out on the basis of being involved (and I'm clearly not alone). This whole mess should have been referred to another, uninvolved administrator to deal with and decide on the course of action. Nick (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you misunderstand what "involved" means. My closure of the AfD of the Polandball article was an administrative action, and as WP:INVOLVED makes clear, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role (...) is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." In other words, as long as I do not engage in an editorial capacity with the "Polandball" topic, which I do not intend to because it does not interest me, there is no problem with me continuing to take administrative actions in this topic area. Apart from that, issuing alerts is not a sanction, but something everyone can do, whether involved or not. (Josve05a, please tell me if you would like me to stop using this talk page to talk to Nick.)  Sandstein  14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you genuinely think it's acceptable to be the deleting administrator of Polandball and then to come to Josve05a's talk page and warn of discretionary sanctions when Josve05a is looking to reverse a deletion you made through the Deletion Review process, there's not a lot I can do. I would never, ever consider doing what you've done and I've always included INVOLVED to include any question of administrative action, not just editing action. Anyway, TL;DR, I think you're way out of line and far too involved to act impartially but we're never going to agree, so we'll just have to leave it there. Nick (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just found this ... and I agree entirely with Nick here. Your prior decisions were under community review, and you decide to perform actions against the person who initiated the review and against the person whose work was being reviewed. Is that how you think admins should react? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I did not consider that in the context of the deletion review request, my alert might have been perceived as an adversarial action by the person at whom the alert is directed. I'll keep that in mind for the next similar situation. Nonetheless, an alert is not an administrative action, but something any editor may issue, whether involved or not. The criticism of my issuing the alert is therefore still unfounded. As concerns my closing the AfD of an article to which Russavia contributed, I don't see how this makes me involved for the purpose of deleting of an article written by a sock of Russavia. These are both administrative actions.  Sandstein  15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Even for your frequently tenuous Arbitration Enforcement action Sandstein, this takes the biscuit. Josve05a - consider the above message revoked or superfluous, there's no way I (or indeed the Arbitration Committee) is going to allow an over enthusiastic amateur to stop people trying to add content to Wikipedia. I have thought, with all due respect Sandstein, your Arbitration Enforcement was blunderingly incompetent, but this just confirms it. Nick (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)