User talk:Sandstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.
  • 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


Your emasculation and evisceration of the Accursed Kings article

What the hell, man?
Why even bother having an article at all if you are simply going to blow away everything worth reading, eh?
Put the content back. Jesus Christ.
99.247.1.157 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And maybe you don't give a shit about the Academie francaise in Germany.
But in the English-speaking world, we do give a shit about it.
99.247.1.157 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you make your argument on the article talk page, Talk:The Accursed Kings, so that others may weigh in also. Also, I've found that in life, one generally gets farther with a friendly, nonconfrontational approach, particularly in a collaborative endeavor such as this.  Sandstein  17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
But he called you "Jesus Christ"!  :-) DP 23:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your March 2014 block is being misunderstood by other moderators

In March of 2014 you had blocked me for using the language "harass" during an AE, but NOT for the underlying/substantive issue in the AE itself. The AE itself was concluded as "not actionable" by yourself and Penwhale (talk · contribs). I would appreciate a modification of the wording on my talk page so that moderators aren't mistaken into thinking that I violated the arbitration decision that was at issue in the original AE. Thanks.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in Urartu's recent block that was at all related to AE. Nobody's mistaking anything - except for Urartu mistaking how Wikipedia works DP 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Urartu TH, I think that administrators are quite capable of understanding whatever happened without me needing to clarify anything.  Sandstein  21:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, the problem is that on my Talk page, it says "To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violations of the principles outlined in WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS in your statement to WP:AE, see the related thread, you have been blocked". I was never blocked for a violation of the underlying AE issue. The AE itself was deemed "not actionable" by Penwhale. Various administrators have been and will continue to be confused by this. A simple deletion of those words is all that it takes to clear things up. Cheers.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, he's basically saying that your usage of {{uw-aeblock}} on his talk page was erroneous as the very first part of the template does say that it is because of an arbitration enforcement. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The block message is correct, because the block I made was an arbitration enforcement block. I see no need to change anything.  Sandstein  08:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am unsure as to which arbitration decision the block was enforcing. Your block comment at AE read However, it is demonstrated in Urartu TH's statement above, which includes, without evidence, allegations against the complainant such as "harassed by Grandmaster", "anti-Armenian POV" and "shameful attempt at censorship". This violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF and the principles outlined in the Committee's findings in WP:ASPERSIONS - and you blocked him on that grounds. WP:ASPERSIONS originated from an arbitration case, but itself is a principle and has no regular remedy attached to it. Please clarify for me as to which case/motion/etc the block can be attached to. (I am not disagreeing with the block, but I think the first part of the block reason used in this case does not apply.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The block was made under the authority of the decision WP:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions, which authorizes "standard discretionary sanctions ... for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions authorizes administrators to impose sanctions if an editor "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". I found that this applied to Urartu TH's (Armenia-/Azerbaijan-related) conduct at WP:AE, as discussed there.  Sandstein  18:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, but... saying that WP:AE is an element of the set all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, even broadly interpreted, may be a stretch...? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
i don't think so. The AE request and the allegations at issue were related to the topic.  Sandstein  04:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
But they were not. The AE request involved a discussion about various statistics in the khojaly article which were discussed and concluded at arbitration, while the block was only for general comments I made during the AE itself about the accusing user's behavior towards me. If I hadn't made those statements, then I would NOT have been blocked. The AE itself was deemed "not actionable". This is really an easy fix. I don't think I'm asking for much. It's simply clerical issue. I would like to reiterate that I did not violate the underlying AE issue on its merits.--Urartu TH (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I see no reason to change anything.  Sandstein  11:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Urartu, while editing an article within the realm of AE enforcement, you became extremely uncivil towards someone who was also editing that article. Therefor, it still fits within AE enforcement. AE is there to deal with content AND behaviour in "challenging" articles/subjects - and this block was based on behaviour DP 12:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
DP, with due respect, that block had nothing to do with statements I made during editing. It had to do with statements I made AFTER the AE request was filed, which were made INSIDE the request discussion itself. I did not violate Arbitration. That is the point. All I did was offer evidence of the accuser's WP:HOUND behavior. The AE itself was deemed "not actionable" by Penwhale (talk · contribs). I was blocked for noting the WP:HOUND behavior during the AE action itself, not before it. Therefore, AE was not being enforced by blocking me. I honestly think this is a minor issue.--Urartu TH (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Hi Sandstein, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Catholicism

Hi, I was patrolling recent changes when I stumbled across this page. From reading the content I felt there are some serious issues with the article as it stands. When I read the talk page I see that it's been PROD'd twice with the last result being 'delete (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Catholicism_(2nd_nomination)). I'm pinging you as you closed the deletion request to see if you know why it's still live in the mainspace? Many thanks, CaptRik (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's recently been recreated. But it's substantially different from the deleted version, so it would need a new deletion discussion to be removed again, if it is deemed still deficient.  Sandstein  16:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'll take a closer look at the new content. CaptRik (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note that i've added multiple tags to the article and removed some paragraphs that are sourced from a blog and a wikipedia article. I'm not sure i'm qualified to judge notability of the article. I believe that the book exists, i'm just not sure of the significance of it all. CaptRik (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)








Creative Commons License