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

DYK for Side grip

On December 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Side grip, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice going

Good timely add of a pic of the shoe! Nice going. Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To you as well!  Sandstein  13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What a way to start the New Year!

Dear Sandstein,

First of all, happy New Year. I hope its a good one for you. The reason I am writing though is because I'm rather shocked at your reimposition of a two month topic ban on Nableezy on this, the first day of the new year, just a couple of days after his last topic ban ended. I don't think his edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD (over a month ago) deserve to be held against him now. And as you said yourself in your closing of the other complaint against him, there was nothing actionable in that complaint. Therefore, your decision comes off as rather punitive. Would you care to revisit? Or should I file a request for review somewhere? Can you direct me to where that can be done? Thank you. Tiamut^talk 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and happy new year to you too. I do think Nableezy's repeated violation of the topic ban, even though it happened about a month ago, requires a restart of the ban, because he violated the topic ban in exactly the confrontative manner the ban was intended to prevent, i.e., by editwarring to reinsert the AfD comments of other banned editors (which also violated the policy prohibiting editing on behalf of banned users). Although the sanction was imposed relatively late (I was away from AE until today), the enforcement request was made in a timely manner. My closing of another complaint as not actionable has no bearing on the closure of the unrelated complaint at issue here. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider the sanction; it may be appealed as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  20:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the New Year's wishes. I must disagree, however, with your assessment, which I believe fails to assume good faith. To Nableezy, the Jonathan Cook article was not clearly covered by the topic ban, which is the reason he was restoring those other editors' comments. Furthermore, his edits to restore the comments removed were in line the guidelines outlined at WP:TALK (i.e. that editors should generally avoid removing or altering the comments of other editors) and came one day before the end of his the expiration of his talk page ban. Two separate requests were opened, prior to the AE request that you closed, suggesting that his actions be reviewed. They were, and no action was taken by the admins who commented on those other requests. The idea that a third request could be filed on the same issue and one month later be closed with a renewal of his topic ban seem patently unfair (triple jeopardy?), and I said above, punitive.

It is very disheartening actually, and not the way I would liked to welcome the new year myself. But you are free to your opinion and free not to respond further. I will take it up where you suggested when I calm down a bit. Tiamut^talk 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did. Since nobody linked to these previous AE requests that you mention during the whole long time the request was open, I could not (and still cannot) take them into account. In any case, double jeopardy is a legal concept inapplicable to arbitration enforcement, which is not a legal proceeding.  Sandstein  21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you want a diff for AGK saying that AfD were to be treated as talk pages (from which I was banned for 1 month) here you go. Also, if you want to see the AE thread where my actions at the AfD were addressed, here you go. This topic ban is wholly without basis and I hope you reverse your decision. You also could have asked for the diffs before making a decision based on limited information. nableezy - 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody is omniscient, all human decisions are based on limited information. But as the editor subject to a AE request, it is your own responsability to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner. At any rate, the new evidence does not cause me to change my conclusion. Since enforcing admins act independently from one another, the previous thread in which Tznkai declined enforcement (but did not find that the complaint was unfounded) does not prevent me from coming to a different conclusion. Even assuming arguendo that the ban as applicable to AfDs ended one month after 21:02, 29 October 2009, at least your edits [1] and [2] were made prior to 21:02, 29 November 2009 and thus in violation of the ban.  Sandstein  21:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are imposing a two-month topic ban for those two edits which took place over a month ago and were already adjudicated as harmless by another admin. Your decision is more disruptive to Wikipedia than the alleged offense. Its stopped me from improving articles for the last couple of hours and it will stop Nableey from improving articles over the next two months. I don't know what your problem is Sandstein, but I think you should take a good long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if this is in Wikipedia's best interest, or your own. Tiamut^talk 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted edits that I felt constituted vandalism and asked the users to go to AE with their complaints about Nick and Nishi instead of attempting to enforce arbitration decisions on their own. If you feel that is ban worthy so be it, but please indefinitely block my account right now (though turn off the autoblock, I have a shared ip at work). If you decline to block my account I will sue you all, (that line should give you reason for an indef block, NLT). nableezy - 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We do not block people on their own request. I have provided you with instructions about how to appeal the sanction if you believe it was wrong.  Sandstein  22:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to "appeal" the sanction, I want you to realize how ridicolous it is. And you are not blocking me on my own request, you would be blocking me for making a legal threat. But your life, Im outta here. nableezy - 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You write:

'he violated the topic ban in exactly the confrontative manner the ban was intended to prevent, i.e., by editwarring to reinsert the AfD comments of other banned editors (which also violated the policy prohibiting editing on behalf of banned users).'

Look I don't care whether this violates my permaban or not. I can't allow an outright fiction like this to pass unchallenged. The link tells us that

'Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying",'

I made an intemperate post, and a follow up within a few minutes,and am willing to pay the penalty for it. It has been discussed, and I violated my permaban, as I admitted and apologized. A tremendous infraction of one lapse of judgement into 7 months of my permaban. But in reverting Gilabrand's erasure of my remark Nableezy in no way 'edited on my behalf' or 'at my direction'. You may not believe me, but I wished to erase the remark myself, but did not do so because, out of pure fucking scruple, I thought to do so would be seen, rightly so, as an attempt to erase the evidence for my own culpable behaviour. I know administering this place is like cleaning up in a lunatic asylum, and there's far too much for any one caretaker to look to, but Nableezy has never, never edited at my direction, and to insinuate this on the public record, with the authority invested in you, and with the reputation you have earned attached, means that, through my own oversight, Nableezy is now suspected of meatkpuppetry. Worse still, you saying this suggests to other eyes that one motive for your action was that you considered he acted as my (ugh!) 'meatpuppet'. I bitterly protest this, not only for Nableezy, but for myself. I may be whatever Arbcom or straying administrators think I am, but I have never used these tactics, as opposed to so many of those handles that have taken me, Nableezy, and many others to arbitration, and got their way.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that Nableezy edited at your direction, or that you are to blame for his edits. Sorry if it came across that way. But his re-insertion of your comments had the effect of circumventing your topic ban, which is disruptive.  Sandstein  22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Sandstein, the disruption was by those editors who tried to remove the comments, instead of taking it to AE. Nableezy did the right thing, although he was technically in breach of his talk-page ban (by less than 24hrs). That does not merit the re-imposition of a full two-month topic ban (maybe a short nominal block at most). Your misjudgement here looks like it may have cost Wikipedia the services of a first-rate editor. --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether any other editors also acted disruptively has no bearing on my assessment of Nableezy's actions. Everybody is judged only on their own merits. A block in this situation would have been punitive, but it is my judgment that a topic ban is much better suited for preventing continued similar disruption. If Nableezy retires from editing Wikipedia instead of appealing my sanction, that is regrettable, but it is his own decision.  Sandstein  22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep talking as if Nableezy was being "disruptive", or is likely to "continue disruption". Just examine Nableezy's contribution history. He's careful, accurate, adheres closely to sources, and is bloody good at formatting articles. Look at the articles he's created or contributed to (Franz Baermann Steiner, Al-Azhar Mosque to take just two I'm familiar with). Can you not see what an outrageous, monstrous injustice this is? He made a minor, technical, infraction of the rules, that's all. Why the hell should anyone put up with being banned for doing the right thing? I strongly suggest you examine the evidence carefully, and think again. --NSH001 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The disruption lies in violating an arbitration-authorized topic ban (itself imposed for disruption) to edit war. I am sure he has many merits as an editor, and he is certainly not only disruptive, but that is not relevant in arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A fatuous argument. The whole point is that this is a trivial, technical breach of the rules, nothing more. Goodnight --NSH001 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an open invitation for serious editors to be seriously disruptive, by mirroring the behaviour of the endless number of people who are more interesting in scrutinizing the minutiae of people they take to be their adversaries, in order to catch them out, and haul them before arbitration. I've always argued that one should never go to arbitration over etiquette, trivia, or even serious suspicions about sockpuppetry, but stand one's ground and argue. It's evil, and unmanly, and is screwing up a lot of potential good editing. I see that of several people I advised to take that stance, most have been driven off wiki, because they won't retaliate, and because arbitrators keep thinking that trivial lapses are serious evidence of 'troublesome' behaviour. Some of the most quarrelsome plaintiffs and cumbersomely POV weighted editors are still thriving. No one complains about them, or if they do, the complaints are just closed from tedium. You have a clear conscience, but the systemic bias is now patent. Nableezy, for the record, spent a considerable amount of time trying to needle me back to wikipedia, and his insistence, via throwing my way huge amounts of material I'd always desired to read but couldn't access via the net, eventually enticed me to go beyond the banned I/P area where I think my useful competence lies, to write up neglected areas where I once used to know quite a lot, on anthropology, for example. That's not on the record, but it showed how hard he worked to rope back someone who was disenchanted with the extraordinary arbitrariness of wiki's legal system, where you survive only if you spend more time wikilawyering than on studying up for article drafting. He asked for nothing in return, and in our exchanges there was little of a personal or political nature. You've lost him, and incidentally if inadvertently, made a wonderful new year for those who went for his jugular from woe to go. You say he may wriggle back if he begins to adopt the legalistic niggling, plaintiff mentality on which his adversaries thrive, and which serious editors deplore. Sandstein, there is such a thing as discretionary judgement, and commonsense. You have no read the drift. Or have you, and gone ahead regardless. Remember, your sanction against me 3 years ago was correct on 3 RR when I began. But the people who pushed for action were destructive sockpuppets, meatpuppets and tagteamers, all banned or disappeared. And I have to wear that on my page, while the fact that I edited for the good of the encyclopedia against a covey of disruptive warriors is lost from view. You did the right thing technically, but the result was I had to sit out a punishment for trying to keep reliable sources from being erased by two POV-warriors. In your view, rather than editing, I should have joined in the tactical battle, and gone for Zeq, and his allies. Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is WP:TLDR. Could you be briefer?  Sandstein  23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I suggest you take the time to read this properly (it's not that difficult). You might learn something. And I suggest you devote a similar level of care and attention to reviewing the evidence carefully in this case. --NSH001 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No. But I do commend, and hope you will entertain the suggestion, a reading of Billy Budd within the year. It is far longer than my post, but makes my point more succinctly. I think it should be required reading for anyone who exercises administrative functions and who thinks with Goethe that duty is just the demands of the day (No doubt you too have it by mermory, but just in case: Was aber ist deine Pflicht? Die Forderung des Tages). With that, I too must now join my friend in permanent retirement from the extra I/P area as well. Nishidani (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would probably violate your own restriction in continuing this discussion.  Sandstein  00:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disgusted

I am disgusted by your blatant bias. I suggest you read Lord Acton's dictum, and apply the lessons to yourself, and to Wikipedia's farcical "justice" system that succeeds in driving away the very best editors. --NSH001 (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As with everyone else who's comented above. This issue - which involved the restoration of controversially deleted comments (yes, including some from me it would seem) from an AfD page - was the subject of multiple threads, where enforcement was declined, and you take it upon yourself to turn up two weeks later out of the blue to impose a ban? At the same time as demanding that the individual in question has to provide the evidence to show that there was no breach? No pal, if you want to impose draconian sanctions on people, it's up to you to demonstrate a substantive breach of any prior sanctions, rather than taking an accusation as read, and implicitly accusing Nableezy of lying when he asserted AfDs were excluded from his ban by demanding he show diffs, as you did initially. Look at the sanctions log, you bleated. I did. It specifically notes the amendment to exclude talk pages, which was, as Nableezy says, clarified as including AfD pages. --Nickhh (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What does "bleated" mean?  Sandstein  18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, FYI: "bleated" is the past tense of a sad pathetic, complaining little noise made by a lamb. As opposed to "Mheeeeh" which is an angry noise made by the lamb's mother. Unless you feel yourself to be a lamb then I would imagine in this case it is merely a missed erronious spellchecker correction for "deleted." Glad to be of help.  Giano  19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Nickhh, and would appreciate an explanation by him.  Sandstein  20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another request for reconsideration

Sandstein, it seems to me that you are topic banning Nableezy for two months, for making AfD edits which were arguably reverting vandalism, but arguably in contravention of a ban which was about to expire in a mere few hours, a ban whose imposition had been strongly disputed by several respected admins and even by "the other side". This overrode the judgment of earlier administrators who had dismissed complaints on the same facts. (You incorrectly say above that these earlier requests and decisions were not linked. What reason there could ever be for not be taking them into account is mystifying.) Is this not wheel-warring in spirit? Does this really seem to you to be an exercise of good judgment?

In my view you have tried with some success to be predictable and clear in your administrative actions. Such an aim can be taken too far. Applying rules mechanically here and arbitrary and ungrounded dismissal of strong arguments as "immaterial" seems to me to make this decision the opposite of what I believe you intend: capricious and tyrannical, and more disruptive to writing an encyclopedia than anything Nableezy has done.John Z (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2010

E gud's neus :-) Beschti Grüß ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you as well!  Sandstein  20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: ANI

I'm so sorry about that, not sure how that happened (well, edit-conflict, but still...) – I'd have had no objection to you replacing it yourself, of course!! ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)