User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Hello! You were the closing administrator for the article James Norman, MD. The consensus was keep. There was also some debate in that AfD discussion about changing the name of the article - since Wikipedia does not usually use professional titles like "MD", "PhD", or "Doctor" in article titles.

Several of us have continued that discussion at Talk:James Norman, MD and we seem to have reached consensus about how to change things. However, some of the changes may require administrator tools. Would you be willing to look at that page, and if you agree with the changes, would you go ahead and carry them out?

Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done.  Sandstein  22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although in the past I have usually ignored these almost juvenile attempts to find ways to censure me, and prevent me from stating my frank opinion concerning many things, I believe it will be in everyone's interest that I respond at this case. I'm asking for your consideration for a brief amount of time to formulate a proper response. A family graduation and the current holiday has not given me a chance to get to it yet. A day or two is all that I will need. Thank you. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are free when and whether to respond, but administrators are also free to take a decision about the request at any time once you've had a reasonable time in which you could have responded, so it's really up to you.  Sandstein  19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I see you have responded to the AE thread. You seem not to have noted my comments however, or my conversation with AGK ... this thread should be closed as the opener is banned by ArbCom motion from launching such processes. This is a quite a straightforward matter I think. There is no amendment allowing for this. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as I know topic bans do not include necessary dispute resolution, as in this case, since this concerns the conduct of Dr. Dan with respect to Piotrus.  Sandstein  21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reread the wording, Sandstein. I quoted it and emboldened the important words. Here it is again : "Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year." That's really straightforward. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do know how to read. But you are free to make a separate AE request about this and to convince another administrator otherwise.  Sandstein  21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it ... why is this supposed to be complicated? There's an open AE thread launched by a user banned from launching such threads. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are explicit and implicit exceptions. Explicitly, it is a stretch to construe an AE complaint as a process discussion about EE articles. Implicitly, it is recognized that topic-banned editors need to remain able to defend themselves, especially through dedicated community fora, when attacked by others - within reason.  Sandstein  21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with your point about needing to be able to defend oneself (though I don't think frivolous litigation should count), but an AE complaint stemming from an EE topic dispute is definitely an EE process ... widely construed. As eloquently as you make your case, I really don't see the scope for argument given the broad wording. As I, AGK and others clearly got the same impression from the wording, you may want to get ArbCom to change the wording [or something] ... action on this thread that ignores this ruling is infringing on this ruling. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "as far as I know topic bans do not include necessary dispute resolution". Then why did you block me for 48 hours for so called "topic ban violation", when I made the constructive comment about Wikipedia policy only on AE thread that was about my dispute with other user concerning his user page?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links, please.  Sandstein  21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]]--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal at issue there did not constitute an attack against you or otherwise concern your conduct; accordingly, your commenting on it did not constitute necessary dispute resolution.  Sandstein  21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. At that time I was reported by the user's friends on civility alert noticeboard concerning my comments about the user page of the user, and the images that were used on it. Success of rejection of his appeal was concerning me directly. Rejection of his appeal meant that other editors recognized that my comments about the user page had some merits. In any case the comment you blocked me for had absolutely nothing to do with my ban. It possibly could not have created any new dispute because I just quoted and linked to Wikipedia policy. The block was extremely unfair and unjustified, but of course what else could I have expected? After all my topic ban has been extremely unfair and unjustified also. As it clearly states in the policy: "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say that users subject to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy" (highlighted by me). I have never repeatedly violated policy in the topic of my ban, I hardly edited there at all, and you have never provided any difference of me violating any policy on that particular topic. You told me once that topic bans suppose to release stress level. I guess the do, if they are fair to begin with, and if their enforcement is fair too, otherwise they do not. Okay having said all of that I am not asking you to respond. First-of-all I believe that I have already overused the limit of your patience with me ( you never have had a patience with me. I wish I knew why, but whatever...), and second-of-all you have enough on your plate without me. I guess now you will delete my message, as you did with so many others of mine... Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made an AE filing which mentions you in passing, here: [2] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein, here's my real life story that proves how fully I comply with my topic ban. Maybe after reading my story, you will find it possible to lift my ban now, a month before it expires:)
Few days ago my husband and me were on United flight 59 flying to Kona. The pilot offered passengers a problem to solve. We were given the time we took off, the distance we need to fly to get to Kona, the speed of the plane and the speed and direction of the wind. We should have calculated the time we would reach half way. Flight attendants collected our solutions, and in half an hour the pilot declared the winner on the radio. The winner was me. I was off only 15 seconds. Everybody turned toward me, smiled and waved at me. I was so proud of myself. After all there were 200+ passengers on that plane, and I won. I was making fun of my husband, who was off 30 minutes because he never bothered actually to make the calculations, and just came up with a first number that came to his mind. Then flight attendant brought me my prize - CD with Hawaiian songs, and it was the time my husband was making fun of me. He told me: "You may not have this CD, you should give it to me." "Why?" I asked, and he explained to me: "Look at the name of the singer. His name is Israel. You are under broadly construed topic ban on everything connected to Israel." I looked at CD and saw the name written there: Israel Kamakawiwo'ole. Without any arguing I handed my CD to my husband complying with my topic ban :).
Sorry for the long story. So, would you lift my topic ban? Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]