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

Most respectful question

I am concerned that you did this with the comment "rm personal attacks etc" when I provided you specific cites to the debates in question, which, in their totality, constituted my evidence of bullying and personal attacks in an attempt to clarify the comment you "warned" me about. I have no wish to abuse any forum, but your comments concern me, as first you warn me for casting aspersions without evidence, then you remove my evidence when I provide it. I could of course provide a longer list of diffs, but I do not want to be viewed by you as abusing the forum or this talk page, so if you could kindly clarify what would be required for you to consider retracting your "warning" on the pseudoscience page, I would be most graciously interested in seeing a way to clear my good name; what is the most appropriate way and place for me to present this evidence? Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen and others have explained to you on your talk page that you are mistaken. The warning is appropriate and will not be retracted. You should in the future stay out of AE threads that don't concern you directly, and not make any accusations of misconduct towards others except in the appropriate forum and with convincing evidence in the form of diffs. What evidence you submitted was not suited to prove misconduct.  Sandstein  13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Stay out of AE thread that don't concern you?" Pardon me, but doesn't AE seek "uninvolved" people to comment and offer a neutral view? As far as my comments about Wolfie, what concerns me is that he didn't get the same treatment when he started making personal attacks on Olive. Had you simply removed his comments as well as mine (including his attacks on me as well as on Olive) and warned him about personalizing a thread, I could at least give you a nod for consistency, but as it sits, I have to say that I question your objectivity and neutrality; it is very clear to me that some animals are more equal than others. It is a bit absurd that this arose over what was clearly a fringe editor; we all agreed on that point. But I do think your harsh tone and that of Wolfie is not helpful to dealing with these people, it actually tends to confirm their own beliefs that they are the true prophets of god or whatever, persecuted by all. Much better to just gently ease them out the back and use a lot of WP:IGNORE on their drama and appropriate ANI for any actual behaviors, such as edit-warring. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, AE doesn't seek views, or at least I tend to ignore statements that merely express an opinion. That's because AE doesn't work by consensus. What AE does seek is actionable evidence in the form of dated and explained diffs. Everything else is merely noise. I am advising you not to interfere in AE discussions because so far you have contributed nothing useful to them, and instead you have wasted a lot of time of others and made personal attacks that distracted from the topic at hand.

You use this page to repeat your assertions that one editor attacked another, but again you do not provide evidence in the form of diffs. I care nothing for links to long discussion threads. If you want to provide evidence of misconduct, you must link to specific diffs and explain why they are misconduct, and you must do so at the same time as you make any allegations of misconduct, not later. If you continue in this vein, I will make you subject to an interaction ban or other restriction. This is my final communication in this matter.  Sandstein  22:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done here. You provide no links to the specific guidelines and policies that support your assertions, you merely issue dictates. It's clear I am beating my head against a wall. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw second request from a third party.

Hello Sandstein, As I was looking in at WP, I noticed a few threads revolving around Montanabw and yourself. My first thoughts are that you are overstepping your authority (which does not extend beyond any other admin's). I DO understand that you often use your hours on wiki to parole Arb related items, but I would ask you to step back and re-evaluate this particular situation. I fully admit that I am not on wiki 24/7 at present, however I see no justification for this unilateral restriction/sanction you have placed on Montanabw. Actually I see justification for "warnings" for other editors. To be quite honest the "involved" thought crossed my mind when I saw the people involved.

I don't have the time or inclination to debate the situation; I simply ask that you step back and re-evaluate things here.

Thank you, and best wishes, Ched — ChedZILLA 23:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Because you are apparently not acquainted with the somewhat peculiar process of discretionary sanctions, you my have misunderstood matters. I did not impose a "restriction/sanction", but gave a warning, as required by the arbitration enforcement process WP:AC/DS. Please do tell me why you think I was too involved to act as an administrator here.  Sandstein  04:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Diffs in block entries

Hello Sandstein. Since you often use diffs in your blocks to point to the rationale you might consider trying out a new software feature called Special:Diff. This makes it possible to format a diff as a wikilink and even to use pipe notation to hide the full text of the link. Clickable diffs can now be included as documentation in edit summaries or block entries. Details are at User talk:Guy Macon#When including diffs in edit summaries, consider using a wikilink. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks!  Sandstein  04:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi Sandstein - I just discovered that the page appsFreedom has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppsFreedom, Inc. I am not sure what was missing or why this was deleted. Can you please shed some light and what should I be doing to rectify this situation...

Thanks in advance... Vaidy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaidysubr (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check your link... it doesn't work. (See also WP:GRA.)  Sandstein  06:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

AppsFreedom, Inc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppsFreedom, Inc. found that the topic does not meet our inclusion criteria, found at WP:N. If you want it undeleted, you must find sources that meet the criteria described on that page.  Sandstein  09:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ARBCC notice request

First one

Hi, Please consider delivering and logging the ARBCC template notice to jdey123 (talk · contribs). Not that bad behavior is prereq for these "did you know" notices, but if you wish to know what prompts my request here are some samples

Section blanking

• First blanking of the FAQ
• Second blanking of the FAQ

AGF/Civil

• "...this entire subject is complete, unadulterated bullshit." 17:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Why is there an FAQ section on this talk page, spouting the same propaganda as on the main article page. This is supposed to be a discussion page, no wonder there are massive edit wars when you guys spout bullshit." 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Second one

Sanford123445 (talk · contribs), note the lovely diatribe on the article itself

We might have talked about this before.... the existing process is a bit unclear... do you mind being asked to do this here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Both done. No problem, I forgot about your first message here. Though technically I suppose you could warn and log this yourself, it doesn't have to be an admin.  Sandstein  15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. whether non-admins can do this has been a subject of some debate elsewhere, and doing it this way seems cleaner somehow. Is it OK if I bring future requests here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you made any required notifications yourself. Being an administrator or uninvolved is not needed for this.  Sandstein  19:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it another shot, though if anyone complains (again) will it be ok with you if I reference this thread in the ensuing discussion ?

Yes, though it's not as though my opinion has any particular authority.  Sandstein  19:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Understand, it's just a good second opinion to back up a thread from another admin on my own talk page in case I get accused of bad faith or battlegrounding in dishing up these FYI notices. Thanks for the past assistance, and this thread I think is a wrap unless you have something else to add. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ivan Štambuk is appealing at AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement appeal by Ivan Štambuk. You can respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)