User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:51, 3 May 2009

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

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect this, as it was before you fully protected it. We have a persistent sock puppeteer using IPs and throw away accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one edit by an IP, 24.4.168.11, since my protection, and none by apparent throw-away accounts. I do not see the need for protection based on this one edit, sorry. Sandstein 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was semi-protected before you full protected. When you undid the full protection, you should have restored the former semi-protection which another administrator had decided was necessary due to persistent socking. Shall we have to suffer a bunch of new sock attacks and then have to go back through the bureaucracy of getting semi-protection put in place again? I think your proper action would have been to restore the protection level as it was before, semi. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the semi-protection I put on previously would have run through 10 May. Since none of the regular editors who joined in the WP:AN thread seemed to think that the semi-protection was unfair, or that the socking problem was overstated by Jehochman, I think that 3 months of semi could be justified. The constant arrival of new accounts that aren't autoconfirmed can be helped by the semiprotection. How much time is JEH expected to spend defending this article, given that the defence appears to be endorsed by the community? The truthers have had a chance to make their case in discussion, but they have not gained any consensus for their desired changes. The renewal of semiprotection would not shut out serious long-term editors who hold truther views. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I did not see that the article was previously semiprotected. Still, per WP:SEMI, temporary protection is appropriate for articles "subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption". The policy also notes that "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes."

As no substantial anon disruption is currently ongoing, I do not think a renewal of the protection would be appropriate at this time. I or another admin at WP:RPP will certainly semi-protect the page (which I have watchlisted), should substantial disruption occur. Sandstein 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial disruption was going on, then the protection stopped it. Now that the page is no longer semi protected, the puppetmaster will register a new crop of accounts and harass us (the reasonable editors) for a few weeks until we get that crop of accounts blocked, and get the article reprotected. It's not fair that we have to waste so much time playing Whack-a-mole. Jehochman ^Talk 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a JEH proposal about 9/11 is being considered over at WP:RFAR. I see the arbitrators' position, but I assume their view means that admins can keep on doing the admin thing. That should include opening up special threads at WP:AN to ask for special sanction, if an unusual semi-protection seems to be needed. Another possibility is to take all the socks that were blocked in the recent SPI case and add them to the log of 9/11 blocks and bans. That would raise those actions into the official view of the arbitrators. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be fair to have to play whack-a-mole, but since policy dictates that semiprotection may not be used preemptively, we will have to. Sandstein 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP just attacked the page again. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You basically reversed another admin's semi-protection decision without discussing it with them. We're dealing with at least one very persistent puppetmaster/banned user. Semi-protection seems to be the only way to shut them down. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists/Archive. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing one single additional IP edit, [1], and that edit does not seem to be prima facie disruptive. The fact that you disagree with the edit does not make it disruptive; semi-protection is not a tool for keeping an article in one's preferred state. No matter what we may think of these conspiracy theories (which is a content issue), the requirements for semi-protection (such as an ongoing serious sock/meat attack) are simply not present at the moment. I won't object, though, if another admin, including he who originally semi-protected the page, re-institutes it. Sandstein 04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no content dispute. There are single purpose accounts, meat puppets and sock puppets violating WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR, and there are a handful of editors trying to stop them. Anyhow, I've decide to stop editing the article. Its just too frustrating in this environment. Thank you for your help. Jehochman ^Talk 09:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Sandstein says he will not object, I have put back two weeks of semi-protection on this article, so that the expiry will be at the end of the original month of semi that I put in on 10 April. My understanding is that the original thread at WP:AN endorsed this, or at least acquiesced. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an AfD from 2006. Also, I don't think I have ever edited that article. Sandstein 07:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I participated in the first AfD. Well, I've taken the liberty to close the second one now that you've withdrawn the nomination. Sandstein 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlocklandScreenshot.jpg

Hello,

The Image is listed as a Non-free use media rationale for Blockland and all the information given says that this is a screen shot. This is not a screen shot, it is the logo for the company. Would this logo not fall into the catergory Non-Free logo on this page? Thanks! --gordonrox24 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a logo and should be tagged as such, like File:Pepsi logo 2008.svg. The image is hosted on Wikipedia (as it should be) and not on Commons, because Commons does not allow fair use images (such as logos), as explained on the page that you linked to. Sandstein 16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how would I go about changing the tag from Screen Shot to logo?--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the text of File:Pepsi_logo_2008.svg. You would need to replace the {{Non-free use rationale}} box with the more specific {{logo fur}} (supplying parameters and text as needed), and also replace {{Non-free game screenshot}} with {{Non-free logo}}. Sandstein 16:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No edit conflicts

Weird. That happened to me on another page today. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons picture.

Hello,

Just wondering if you can delete an image I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. It is found here. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sandstein 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at request for arbitration

Hi there. I'm letting you know that I've mentioned you in a statement I made at a request for arbitration. See here. It relates to a 6-month hardblock you did of an IP address. Would you be able to comment there? What I wanted to know was how you determined whether it was a correct autoblock or not? Is that just a technical matter, or do you look further into the block that caused the autoblock? Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I'll leave a comment. Sandstein 05:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The autoblock has come up again in the statement made by Jediknight. Could you opine on whether it is a plausible scenario? What was said (in part) was: "Noticing the 'block' on my logon and not having access to my system (which is a work one). I attempted to logon from his computer to find out exactly what the 'block' meant. This resulted in his IP being used to log into my jediknight95758 account and resulted in his IP being blocked also." I'm currently awaiting technical information before deciding whether to accept that explanation or not. Presumably the person who left the autoblock template would then be this other person. I'm also wondering how common that sort of situation is. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Transmeta microprocessors to Transmeta

Hello! You merged Transmeta Crusoe [2] and Efficeon to Transmeta [3]. As there was no consensus to merge and you have provided no rationale, I have reverted your edits in order to improve the articles. Rilak (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten

62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Topic ban discussion

The topic ban was to be imposed on all three editors involved. Have you only imformed me? When are you going to inform the other two - until the other two are informed I do not acknowledge the topic ban because that is not what the community argeed.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bit Sandstein imposed was the indef topic ban for you, not the topic ban for all three editors. I think the proposal for an indef just for you was in the first AN/I thread rather than the second. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the editors that supported the topic ban are neutral and there is a separate discussion with regards a topic ban ongoing below. I am not going to be singled out here especially as I am in the right. Sandstein - you topic ban is invalid whilst there is an ongoing discussion - a cabal of involved editors does not equate to community concensus and I do not acknowledge it.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you acknowledge the ban is up to you, but if you ignore it, you will be blocked. Your mere assertion that "none of the editors that supported the topic ban are neutral" is insufficient to invalidate the community consensus found by me in favor of your topic ban. We do not expect our editors to be "neutral", at any rate, as long as they are not writing articles. Sandstein 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not allowed to post on his talkpage, but for a further bit of incivility try this and this. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits unblocked

Hi, Sandstein. I have unblocked Vintagekits. Please see my unblock reason here and in the log. Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I note that we disagree with respect to the merits of the block (which, I might add, another administrator endorsed upon review), but my principal concern is that Wikipedia:BP#Unblocking specifies that "except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me why you did not contact me prior to unblocking Vintagekits. Sandstein 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the policy, but a) I don't read "should avoid" as any kind of absolute prohibition—it's certainly broken often enough—and b) I didn't figure you WP:OWNed the blocked status of Vintagekits. A and b are connected, naturally. A counter-question: didn't you think your block was controversial, and ought to have been discussed on ANI before you implemented it? I think you might have tried to see if there was consensus for blocking VK again, after BrownHairedGirl's recent block. It's a principle that users get to blow off a bit of steam on their talkpage while they're blocked; in my opinion, it wouldn't have hurt to apply it to VK the day after his block. He was obviously upset, yet you seem to have gone by the principle of treating him with extra strictness (telling him he's in breach of WP:CIVIL for saying "be quiet"...) rather than cutting him any slack whatsoever. Yes, we do disagree about the merits of your block. I rather doubt a discussion of it between us would have gotten very far; I fear it would simply have eaten up those 24 hours. But if you disapprove strongly of my IAR, perhaps you'd like to take my action to WP:ANI or WP:RFAR Bishonen | talk 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 Hi, Sandstein. I have unblocked Vintagekits. Please see my unblock reason [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=prev&oldid=287639336 here] and in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Bishonen&page=User%3AVintagekits&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 log]. Regards, [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
 :I note that we disagree with respect to the merits of the block (which, I might add, another administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=287639336&oldid=287636703 endorsed] upon review), but my principal concern is that [[Wikipedia:BP#Unblocking]] specifies that "except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me why you did not contact me prior to unblocking Vintagekits. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
+::I'm aware of the policy, but a) I don't read "should avoid" as any kind of absolute prohibition—it's certainly broken often enough—and b) I didn't figure you [[WP:OWN]]ed the blocked status of Vintagekits. A and b are connected, naturally. A counter-question: didn't you think your block was controversial, and ought to have been discussed on ANI before you implemented it? I think you might have tried to see if there was consensus for blocking VK ''again'', after BrownHairedGirl's recent block. It's a principle that users get to blow off a bit of steam on their talkpage while they're blocked; in my opinion, it wouldn't have hurt to apply it to VK the day ''after'' his block. He was obviously upset, yet you seem to have gone by the principle of treating him with extra strictness (telling him he's in breach of WP:CIVIL for saying "be quiet"...) rather than cutting him any slack whatsoever. Yes, we do disagree about the merits of your block. I rather doubt a discussion of it between us would have gotten very far; I fear it would simply have eaten up those 24 hours. But if you disapprove strongly of my IAR, perhaps you'd like to take my action to [[WP:ANI]] or [[WP:RFAR]] [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC).