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

Not trying to adverstise

I noticed there was a page up with our company URL so I replaced it with an actual description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netrangerrr (talk • contribs) 15:40, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

See also

• List of masts

Proxy

Is my understanding correct about what should be done to banned users who solicit editors to proxy for them? [1] -- Fyslee / talk 15:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if this user were indeed to act in the manner you describe, he is already indefinitely blocked. What else do you request? Sandstein (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a banned user who continues to use his talk page to do anything other than defend his banning be prevented from exerting an influence on Wikipedia through that talk page? I'm suggesting that the page be protected so the banned user can no longer access the page for improper purposes. -- Fyslee / talk 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for that. He is not banned, just indefinitely blocked. The talk page may be needed to process other, more well-founded unblock requests or to otherwise communicate with him. Until the talk page is actually abused, I will not protect it. Sandstein (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that violations of WP:TALK, violating WP:NPA, and outing real life identity in an edit summary would be reason enough, especially from a blocked user. I guess policies don't count here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Sandstein (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Rappingwonders

98E has a history of fabrication and impersonation, claiming to be everything from Trey Parker, a 37 year old man, a 10 year old boy, a 20 year old guy, and an 11 year old boy. The unblock was very correctly denied. Look at the talk page of any of his socks and you'll see they always get protected when he makes unblock requests. The current one reads like a joke and he's used the same excuses in one of his other socks. Spellcast (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. Sandstein (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG

Thanks for taking a look at the PHG block. If you'll check the complaint at WP:AE#User:PHG, you'll see that there's actually a long list of reasons why PHG was blocked, not just the creation of the article. I hope you won't consider reversing the block, on a simple technicality like "what is the definition of medieval". Even setting aside that point, the issue remains that the created article was a coatrack, was not backed up by sources, and that it was basically a large copy/paste of information from the already existing France-Japan relations. A better way for PHG to handle things would have been to just suggest a new section at Talk:France-Japan relations, but he did not do that. This is the kind of behavior that led to the ArbCom case, and we still have editors cleaning up dozens of other articles. It is very demoralizing to see that PHG is creating even more problems, before we've even finished cleaning up the old ones. And his new article aside, we have plenty of other block-worthy actions: PHG re-creating a page in his userspace that was just deleted yesterday via MfD, and continuing to defy consensus on the talkpages of multiple history articles, which is a violation of Remedy 4 in the ArbCom ruling, and further exhausting the editors who are engaged in "PHG cleanup". I think it's important that we look at the spirit of the ArbCom ruling here. At no point has PHG indicated any remorse for his actions, nor has he indicated that he understands and accepts the ArbCom ruling. Instead, he keeps introducing questionable content, arguing for the re-insertion of old content of his that was removed, and making long tirades about how the ruling was unfair.

Let me know if you'd like further info, --Elonka 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. I've replied on PHG's talk page. (As an aside, I do not think that sanctioned users need to accept an ArbCom ruling; few do. Instead, we can only request that they obey it.) Sandstein (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry I didn't Make It Clear. I felt Thegingerone was erasing Some of My Comments Because of their Defense.

I do want more justice, and I want to get my points across in a proper, civil manner. I agree completely with your policies, and I do want Wikipedia to be encyclopedic, and not a gossip page. I, however, don't think Thegingerone is looking for that.Kevin j (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Sandstein for your courageous support against my block on my Talk Page. Not so many people have been able to see through the storm of accusations I have been subjected to, but you were one of them, and I can't thank you enough for that. Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Note, though, that this does not mean that I support or endorse any of your actions, including those that led to the ArbCom remedy. Too, you might have been unblocked sooner had you made your unblock requests in a less aggressive manner (remember WP:AGF). I recommend that you try editing in areas that have not even a remote connection to medieval history for some time. Best, Sandstein (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Les Urbaines

Hello! You deleted the page Les Urbaines, which is indeed a page about a swiss art festival. What was the problem with it? (Sorry I'm new). Regards Patrick--DoppelPAt (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cervelat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima

As I stated on the talk page, I was the one who encouraged him to make a new unblock request, so it's not fair to blame him and protect the page. I asked him to try again with less heated wording, focusing only on the block and not on the dispute related to the block. -- Ned Scott 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did not read you that way. Still, after three unfounded unblock requests and extensive, confused wikilawyering per e-mail (including a notification of an "official complaint" with the Foundation) I do not believe a fourth unblock request would achieve any useful purpose. The block will expire soon anyway. Sandstein (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There was only two denied unblock requests, IIRC. The 3rd was removed before it was reviewed, in favor for the less heated one. Like you said, the block will expire soon anyways, but I thought I would try to clear up some possible confusion about this. Cheers -- Ned Scott 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And I declined the third together with the page protection, because, to the extent it was understandable, it was without merit. Sandstein (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's true at all. What's happening here is that we have a frustrated user, and admins are waiting to unblock him not based on the necessity of the block, but because they don't like how he responded to them. Things like protecting his talk page escalates the situation. Threatening to extend his block further because he is e-mailing you also escalates the situation. I understand that we normally expect blocked users to be apologetic, but wether they are or not shouldn't have anything to do with the request. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the protection from User talk:Ottava Rima as it has the appearance of unfair dealing to fully protect a talk page and then have two admins proceed to post comments under any circumstances. The protection wasn't a big deal in my mind (though I could be be biased as I've had a run in with this user earlier in the week - which led to me following this whole mess), until the admins posted. Sorry for mucking around with the way you were handling this.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Did you refuse the Avigdor Liberman edit request based on editprotected or the BLPN ?

Can I catch you on chat somehow and explain the situation?

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I reacted to the editprotected tag and was not aware of any BLPN discussion. Sorry, I do not use chat; I prefer to work completely on-wiki. Sandstein (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, can you please re-examine the case though - there is a BLP issue for which I first requested help. Changes in the article since my request was raised have been superficial and have not resolved the problem. Here's the link to the issue: [2]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That page has not been edited since my declining the request, and accordingly I do not see what I should reexamine. Could you please make a new section and explain what specific text must be removed for which reason? Sandstein (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The text is under Avigdor_Lieberman#Controversy.

The currently valid and related diff is this one: [3]

From the current text, there's 3 BLP related issues -- The relevent explanation: Talk:Avigdor_Lieberman#WP:BLP_violations -- 2 of them are explained in my first comment and later on the third one is explained also.

Basically, either the material should be reverted to my NPOV rephrase that removed the problems - or that all three parts should be removed.

I hope this clears it up some, and also that you can fix the BLP issue until editors can fix the problem on talk. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not clear enough for me to work with. Please proceed as requested above - for each specific BLP issue, please make a new subsection on the talk page, quote the exact text at issue and explain why it violates WP:BLP. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case

Please note that I filed a request to amend my case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior cases: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Best regards PHG (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)