Shortcuts: WP:ADRV WP:ADREV WP:ADMREV WP:ER/ADMIN

↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

This page in a nutshell: Adminstrator review is an informal voluntary process where admins may invite community input regarding their administrative activities.

Administrator review, like Editor review, is a place where administrators (as well as bureaucrats, oversighters, and checkusers) may submit themselves to an informal review of their administrative and/or editorial conduct so that peers may provide constructive feedback. Administrators looking for a more formal venue, or editors wanting to request a review of an administrator's conduct may wish to file an RFC/U.

Please note that this page is intended to review administrative actives and conduct in general. If there is an unresolved issue you would like to discuss with an administrator, it is best to raise the issue on their talk page.

You can use {{Administrator review}} to advertise this review request on your userpage.

Instructions

Create a page for your review, either in your userspace, or a subpage of this page, and transclude it at the bottom of page. You may remove your review at any time. Use the following header:

 ==={{admin|Your username here}}=== (optional statement here) ~~~~ 

Advice for reviewers

Anyone can comment on an administrative review. Here are a few suggestions on giving useful advice.

• Be open, honest, and blunt. Say what you think, but don't be a jerk about it.
• Point to and link to items that are of concern. If any admin has acted improperly in your opinion, show the actual diff that bothers you.
• This isn't a "pat on the back venue", state clearly and maturely how the editor can be a better asset to the community.
• Watch the page, and be willing to discuss any and all issues you may have with the admin.

Contents 1 Open review requests 1.1 Mentifisto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.2 Fritzpoll (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.3 Dank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.4 X! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.5 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.6 Fabrictramp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.7 Sandstein 1.7.1 Straw poll 1.7.2 Discussion 1.7.2.1 Discussion of how various blocks for PAs fit into actual policy 1.8 SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.9 Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.10 Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) 1.11 Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

[edit] Open review requests

[edit] Mentifisto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

Hey; it's been nearly two months since my successful RfA but I've been doing quite a bit of AIV monitoring and frequent CSD deletions, so I'd like to know if I'm generally doing well and whether I could improve on anything. Thanks. -- Mentifisto 06:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm. hasn't edited my comments that I'm aware of (support #44 on your RfA) .. lol. Looks like mostly vandal fighting as far as I can see. I'm sure J.Delanoy appreciates the help ;). Hey, you're doing what you said you'd do - I can't find any fault with that. If I'm not mistaken, you also stop by the help desk from time to time to help new users too - good form. Improvements? ... not sure, maybe do some page protection from time to time if it's something you'd enjoy. Kind-of falls right in with that whole vandal thing I'd think. All-in-all, I think you're doing fine. I don't see anything to complain about here, keep up the good work. ;) — Ched :  ?  17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed, obviously, with your AIV work - your sanctions seem measured and your denials are rooted in policy and common sense. I would normally think that two months is too soon for review, but for someone so involved in vandal whacking it gives me an opportunity to pass on a suggestion; don't let it burn you out! I have done the job consistently for the two years since my gaining the flags and I have seen quite a few come and go - there will always be a new gunslinger around (and the occasional old timer) to take up the strain. If you feel yourself frazzled, or suddenly realise you are not reviewing as deeply as you were just take a break from it and only come back when you feel fresh. Not every report is in good faith, and not every good faith report is valid - and the block button wins you only fleeting gratitude but long term enmity. As for the other stuff? Sorry, got a RecFA to attend to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LessHeard vanU above; a quick look at your contribs shows much vandalism-fighting, which is worthy in itself, but some relief from that by taking a step back and writing/improving some articles would balance your work here. Vandalism will usually be caught sooner or later, but trying to stem the tide, as it were, is a losing battle. Starting an article from scratch and getting it at least to WP:DYK is more valuable to me than endlessly reverting, warning & blocking. Again, please don't burn yourself out. Rodhullandemu 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

- Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think the way you handle speedy deletion is weird, but otherwise I see no problems. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 12:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering I focus on speedy deletion these days, that's a problem :) So far, in response to questions I've asked at WP:AN and WT:CSD, there's more support than I was expecting for making some calls even when there's no consensus yet at AfD, so I'll keep looking for consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• hmmm. I'm going to have to do a little research for this review I think. Good admin., I have no questions there. The one thing that I have a vague impression of (perhaps unfairly), is that perhaps you're a bit unyielding at times. I'll have to look through the diffs to solidify that impression, so I'll just ask: do you give due consideration to other editors points of view? Note that I do generally agree with your stance on things, but I wonder if a more considered approach might work better at times. — Ched :  ?  15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched. I hope this isn't dodging, but I don't know yet how people are going to use this page. Is this like RFA, where it's better to rely on others to comment, or is this more like WP:ER or WP:TEA? I'm going to give this a few days to get a sense of how people want to use this process before I answer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more like ER than it is RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

yea, I guess it's whatever we make of it at this point. Sorry for the delay, and I did go back and look - I'm guessing that I was thinking of someone else as far as the "a bit unyielding at times" comment goes, cause I can't find a single post of yours that would even hint at that. Probably from my "just-getting-started" days when I didn't know who everyone was yet. Anyway, I like the calm cool approach you use at any of the AN discussions, and it looks to me like you're doing a fine job. Actually, this does remind me that I never got around to stopping by your talk page to express my appreciation of the WP:UPDATE work you do. That little gem has helped me a LOT!! thx. (by the way; WP:NOT should be fun to sort through this month .. lol). I know most of the folks coming here are looking for a "what can I do to improve" type of thing, but I really can't find anything Dan. You do good work - if I can ever find any reason to do some trout shopping, I'll be sure to let you know, but I just can't find anything right now. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, Ched. Must have been my evil twin User:Dank55. This morning, when I was thinking about whether I'm too bossy, it occurred to me that there's a reason RFA works the way it does, with everyone talking at once; it's hard to know what to say when responding to criticism from one or two people. If I don't make an honest effort to change in response to the criticism, many people will take that to mean that I don't listen. If I do make changes, it gives a bit of an impression that I'm too interested in keeping everyone happy, and that I am vulnerable to manipulation ... and given that my focus is in deletion work now, giving an impression of "I'll do whatever people want" would conflict with the necessary fairness and impartiality. So my plan is to take these reviews one at a time, starting with Xeno, and I hope we'll get a lot of discussion, because I don't think it will work well unless we have a lot of discussion of each admin in turn. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think your approach to CSD is at all "weird", it's usually spot on. The only incident that really sticks out is Wallyboard, which was a mistake. However, I'm sure you won't do that again. I am a big fan of citing multiple criteria, that earns you extra credit in my book. Bringing cases to WT:CSD for discussion is also a good initiative, I think. decltype (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Dank has made a few indef blocks that I would not have done, but overall has done a good job moppping up messes. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm glad you brought this up. I only do indef blocks if the username obviously refers to the company or organization that they've promoted by creating an article, and even then, I use the mildest template message, the one with "This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username." I'm aware that I'm a little bit between a rock and a hard place here, because there are people who will grumble if I don't block under these circumstances when I'm deleting a db-spam article, and there are people who will grumble if I do. I was thinking that consensus was leaning strongly in favor of blocking, but if this requires a judgment call, then I should probably just get out of the username blocking business and focus on the deletion work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• A good admin, and one who means well, but this was a little... impersonal. That said, a good decision. After checking your contributions, you're doing fine from what I can see! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. I'll do better in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If no one has anything else to add, I'll un-transclude so that others move up a spot, but I'll keep this review open in my userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I've just added MBisanz's handy {{administrator review}} to my userpage, maybe that will attract more comments. Btw, Matt, I had to remove the second sentence, it seems to point to the wrong link, for my review at least. Would you prefer that we move all the currently transcluded sections from our userspace to subpages of this page? Would it makes sense to redirect from one to the other? - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create that template, or admin review for that matter, so feel free to EDIT, since it is a wiki. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Me again. I'm going to bury myself in writing soon, and I want to see if there are any loose ends to tie up before I do. Anyone want me to do (or not) something I haven't (or have) been doing? - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dank appears to conform to an Americentric world-view in his involvement of deletion issues. This is not a desirable attribute in an administrator. However, I am not sure if this is something this user is repeatedly conforming to, nor if, in itself, such attributes at all influence administration policy. The continued proliferation of issues with regards to 'limited geographic scope', and English-language-centric-ness, is not helped by an apparent conformity to a certain type of ideal that Denk appears to adhering to --jrleighton (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The way you handle CSD, both in the management of these, the systematic feedback for declines but also the systematic review of anything potentially controversial at WT:CSD is definitely, in my eyes, the "Right Thing(tm)" to do, and an inspiring example. You're always willing to go the extra mile to ensure that this specific area is covered in the sanest, least bity and most balanced way possible. And I can't possibly figure what the preceding comment could possibly refer to. MLauba (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have nothing but respect for you, Dank. You sometimes disagree with me about username blocks, but you're always willing to back it up with a very well-reasoned argument. Even though you advocate blocking more often than I would -- as most people do -- I have never once seen a knee-jerk reaction or an assumption of bad faith from you. rspεεr (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. I think there may be ways we could keep the same level of quality control and block less, I'll explore that in about a week when I'm finished with the Update. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've encountered you many times, Dan, and I'd say that on the whole your work is good. From what I've seen, UAA decisions are solid and you seem to have a good feel about it. I don't agree with some of your decisions with speedies (I think you were expecting a bit of disagreement with others about CSD, because you're active in that area ;)), but usually pretty reasonable nonetheless - and like MLauba, I like your general approach on the matter. I wanted to let you know, though, that I just "overturned" (deleted) a CSD decline you made a few months ago. In my opinion, the decline rationale was not exactly valid; this article was in existence since Feb 2008, but frankly that should not be a reason to decline if the page is completely orphaned with only a few edits in the history.
• I can agree with you in theory, but IMO that case should have been deleted/stubified. It was very promotional ("our"/"we" terminology), and from my experience, copyright problems, vandalism, and spam can lay around articles for months or years. I come from a fairly strong standard against promotional content, so a few of your speedy declines are too inclusive for me, such as the one that I just mentioned. Still, you're willing to back actions with arguments, mostly sensible with block/delete decisions (my few disagreements are likely a matter of viewpoint, rather than the Right Opinion™), and I have a good deal of respect for you overall. Best, JamieS93 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie, I've always been impressed with your work as well. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about that one. At the time, my theory was that, since the article had had 3 registered editors, had been around for 16 months, and didn't raise any G10, G12 or G3 red flags, that other options might be more appropriate, such as AfD. (I've done a lot of my G11 deletions on userspace pages that were tagged G11 for just that reason ... the fact that they weren't in articlespace meant we didn't have any presumption of the silent assent of the masses.) But I understand that that's a theoretical and somewhat formulaic approach; a judgment call based on the particulars is always better, and thanks for handling that (and also letting me know about the reversion). - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this AR is open, I'd like to bring this here instead of his talk page. This block is proabbly good, but should have been done for COI reasons rather than username since, despite the clear promotional implication, I didn't find any edits that suggested a connection. I was about to mark it as such when Dan blocked them and the bot removed it from the UAA page. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel, but I think it's a judgment call because of the existence of MusicWatchEntertainment.com (I checked before I blocked). I'll allow "... Productions" and "... Entertainment" if it appears that it's just a fancy nickname, but I didn't get that sense from that site. My position is that I don't have to make a connection between that user and that website/company, since if the user isn't affiliated with that website, that's an even better reason to username-block. What's your take on this? - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's now become established practice at UAA to not block just because the name seems promotional or matches a website. The editing has to demonstrate a connection between the name and the promotion to justify a block. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused, I'm asking at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator attention#Usernames_that_match_a_website. - Dank (push to talk) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a permalink: UAA thread. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] X! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

With all due respect X! I think your moderation policy is a little restrictive. You won't let anything be posted under a Theology subtitle unless the contributor posts a comprehensive overview of the person's entire theology - lest it give an imbalanced view. But with that kind of reasoning nothing will ever be added as nobody will do that. Wikipedia is mean't to function with one person adding one bit, and another a different bit so that it gradually builds up, but with your thinking the whole process is blocked - a person must write a comprehensive Theology of a person to be able to say anything at all. That seems to be very restrictive and will result in a lot of blank pages. No hard feelings though...

I guess it's time to ask the community for their opinion of me (without going through RfB). What do you think? (X! · talk)  · @843  ·  19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply love you for all of the cool and invaluable Wiki monitoring tools you provide. ThanX! and keep up the good work. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say, your SoxBots are amazing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Good user in general. Just a few things: I noticed that you tend to go inactive for a few days at a time for no apparent reason. Not a big deal really, but if you're busy in real life, it's best to note that somewhere. Also, I think you should get a bit more involved in article writing. Keep up the good work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. Yes, I do go inactive for a few days at a time. For the last 5 weeks, that had to do with my summer job. Some days were very tiring, and I would just go home and collapse for the rest of the night. That results in 2 days of inactivity if you count nights. In the past few days, I was on vacation for 5 days. I would have put a notice up, but I thought that I would have internet access. (Little did I know that the first hotel charged $12.95 a night for wifi, and the next only had a dial-up ethernet connection). As for article writing, I've been trying to get GNOME work into my arsenal again (such as adding the {{convert}} template to roads, for starts). I agree that I need some more content writing. I thought you said that you and I would collaborate on 2006 Pacific tropical cyclone season, what happened to that? ;) (X! · talk)  · @080  ·  00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd also like to say thanks for the Soxred93 toolset - I think I'm one of the few that actually "breaks" the RfA counter ;) Skier Dude (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• OT: can someone point me to tool set or bot pages? I'm making spot checks for various page attributes, curious to see what is going on here. Thanks.

I've been playing with tools for analyzing vocabulary("freqassoc" is a work frequency tabulator, eutilparse is being used to compare two vocabularies developed for med lit) , lynx -dump "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random">xxx ; cat xxx | grep -v "http://" | sed -e 's/ */\n/g' | grep -v "[0-9]" |tr [A-Z] [a-z] | freqassoc | sort -g -r > yyy; echo `eutilparse -diff yyy ~/soc_vocab `

I was also looking at link destinations,

  559  lynx -dump "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random">xxx ; cat xxx | grep -v "\["|grep "[a-zA-Z0-9]" | head -n 1 ;cat xxx | sed -n 's/.*http.\/\/\([^ 

/:"]*\).*/\1/p' | sort | uniq -c| sort -g -r

Sorry for off-topic, but wasn't sure where tools are covered. Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

How's my driving? 1-800-KOH-ADMN :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I think very highly of any admin who makes use of this process, and I wish that more would, as you are. So I'm commenting largely because I feel bad that you've been sitting here alone for a few days! I haven't had a lot of personal interaction with you, but you did close this AfD that I started. Even though I started the AfD, I came to be persuaded during the process that the conclusion that you reached was going to be the correct one, and I believe that you were exactly correct in the way that you closed it. For whatever that's worth. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Consistently reasonable admin. What more could you ask for? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• You're the ace of ♠ in my book. No complaints here. --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that you have acted too quickly without exercising due dilligence, as you blocked me based on a tip by an unreliable anon user. For instances of edit warring, rather than picking sides (aside from a 3RR violation), I would have rather that you give out warnings first. For the sockpuppet accusations, I expected to have an opportunity to defend myself since there was no initial proof, furthermore there was a tool available to check the IP addresses. While I'm willing to see your behavior as careless rather than malicious, I feel that these recent actions fall short of the standards expected of an administrator, and I'm concerned that another editor could have been just as unfairly sanctioned as I had. GoldDragon (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• This guy is a loose cannon. He deleted the entry on Goldsea Asian American Daily, the leading Asian American content site on the internet. Mind explaining why, King of Hearts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Patrol (talk • contribs) 16:57, August 6, 2009

• Shows good judgement in my view. Keep up the good work. Astronaut (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Tempted to actually call that number, just to see what happens... Don't listen to these fools with their "why did you delete <insert obscure, obviously not notable article here>??? You're an idiot for deleting it!!!" You're doing a great job as an admin, and this is coming from true sincerity, not just because you're my admin coach ;)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The only time I've ever seen you AFAIK is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolis Group, but I do think that's one of the more dubious closures I've seen. – iridescent 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification to the above; the fact that I don't recognise the name is a good sign, as it means I've never seen you being complained about anywhere. – iridescent 10:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• A very polite, friendly, and reasonable admin. Hasn't done anything to really stir up a conflict. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No homo early, I wouldn't have used IAR as a reason. I would've used WP:SNOW (or a speedy keep reason) if closing early, and probably waited to close the discussion until it was decided to use it in DYK. -Mairi (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• At one page, you have said that I am using Sock. I assure and challenge that I am not using any Sock and even presenting myself for accountability. Please, clear this blame which has ruined my position. I would appreciate your immediate action. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• All of my interactions with you have been at recent IfD/NFC discussions, so it is only upon them that I can judge you. Honestly, I do not see you as a strong admin- a strong admin, for me, is someone who is willing to enforce our non-free content criteria, no matter how unpopular it makes them. In a few cases, you seem to have ignored the obvious in order to favour the "mass opinion", which, although perhaps diplomatic, is not the way to build our encyclopedia. Consensus is not about the opinion of the masses. If it was, we'd be Wikipedia, the non-free Pokémon encyclopedia. It'd be great to have another admin bouncing around the NFC issues, but, please, if you're going to help out there, help remove content as needed, don't pander to the desires of the pro-NFC brigade. I'm not saying you have to be anti-NFC, but we have our compromise in the NFCC- let's not water it down further. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for intervening in my Storm Shadow dispute. I'm glad you fairly saw my point, despite me being an anonymous user.
• Quiet and respectful, a good worker. I like an admin that reduces the stress and lessens the dispute, well done, keep up the good work. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, you're doing a good job. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll Keep You - I noticed your active participation at AFD recently. I have found your comments, and decisions, both thoughtful and insightful. Keep-up, (no pun intended:-).the good work. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• king, my account has not moved to my new username from fngosa to Freshymail. It is already 7 days.

Thank you Freshymail (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've no concerns about any of your admin actions that I've ever noticed. From a quick look at your contributions I see you know enough to work on Edit Filters, which is a valuable capability. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent decision on my RfD. If I'd been less of a newbie I would have thought of that myself and just gone ahead with. Education is a fine thing. Jan1nad (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to second AA patrol's query - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goldsea_Asian_American_Daily shows two "delete" views: one complains the sourcing is questionable, the second complains of poor writing. Please explain your rationale for deletion. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• While I much admire your initiation of this process, I stumbled upon it in planning to draw your attention to the anniversary of an action you took nearly a year ago. On October 17, 2008, you blocked me for 24 hours for violation of 3RR without a personalized word of explanation even though I had not and have never reverted any part of an article more than 3 times in 24 hours, and despite your being able to see clearly above your notice on my talk page that the person whom I had last reverted implicitly acknowledged that he had violated 3RR but demanded that I not report him on threat of retaliation. Although that is the only time I have ever been blocked and I still don't understand your decision to punish the culprit and the attempted rescuer alike, that is not the point. The point is the appeal that I had previously made, and am now renewing, on the talk page of Michael I of Romania for assistance in rescuing the article from a sockpuppet whose aggressive OWNership of the article I documented back to March 2006. Although I had attempted to fix this by filing an appeal on the BLP board, which was ignored (apparently because -- never having done it before -- I supplied too many diffs for any admin to take under review) and publicly drew attention to the problem on the talk page, the BLP violation continues to this day. After you blocked me I have refrained from editing the article. Meanwhile, you can readily see from the talk and edit pages the result: the sockpuppet has continued to OWN the article, driving away by sheer persistence the few editors who were drawn to the dispute and attempted to free the article. Michael of Romania cannot live much longer, but Wikipedia continues to propagate the notion that he is a traitor and a thief, even though that is not the prevalent view of the man anywhere else in the world. I don't know what to do. I'll accept that I deserved to be blocked and that you were behaving in an exemplary manner as admin if you would just offer some practical assistance in freeing a BLP violating article from an obsessed ultra-Orthodox monarchist sockpuppet who is now entering his 5th year of using Wikipedia to successfully disperse a false history of one of the two last surviving anti-Nazi heads-of-state of World War II. Please! FactStraight (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• King of Hearts, I am disappointed that you removed my article "Chatsworth Products, Inc.". It was under revision to provide more neutral content as directed by another editor. This article was not intended to promote Chatsworth Products, Inc., but rather to provide Wikipedia users with solid facts about the company’s origination as an Employee Ownership Association (ESOP), the types of data center products and energy efficient solutions designed for technology equipment and involvement in overall industry development. I created this page by reviewing company Wikipedia pages and the content on my page was appropriate compared to the others that I reviewed, which often touted the companies and their accomplishements and specific products. --12.16.243.2 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)--12.16.243.2 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Once in a while I disagree with his call, but nothing that I see as being out of line, just different views. I rarely even comment on these, but King is active and seems to be levelheaded and consistent. I'd be happy if more admins were like him. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Fabrictramp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

One of the things that has always bothered me as an admin is the lack of constructive criticism about my actions, so I'm hoping you all will do me the favor of providing it.

A few ground rules:

• Be open, honest, and blunt. Say what you think, but don't be a jerk about it.
• Point to and link to items that are of concern.
• Please make your criticism something I can learn from. "Bad communication" isn't going to help me be a better admin. "It would be nice if you told me why you declined my speedy" helps me much, much more.
• If I need clarification on your comment, I'll ask here. If I don't hear back from you in a few days, I'll put a talkback on your talk page.

Thanks! Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for not being of assistance, but there simply is not much I can criticize you on. Keep up the good work! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the feedback on "The Monk Seal Conspiracy", I agree that it isn't notable and so if you want to delete it then go ahead,you were much politer about the matter than were some folks. I've put the pith of the book into the main page on the Meditteranean Monk Seal. I can recommend the book, it's not famous enough to warrant a page on wikipedia but it's a terrific read and should be better known.Andrew F. (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a game on facebook that a ton of people play called My Heroes Ability. I was considering writing a new entry but see you deleted the previous one. If I write a comprehensive article and collaborate with a lot of people who will edit it and make a large page, will it stay up, or is it potentially going to be deleted again? (com1padres)

I could give you a more specific answer if you could link to where you see that I deleted it, as that will let me find the article text. Unfortunately, I don't see a deleted article at My Heroes Ability. But in general, if you want to write an article that will stick around, read WP:FIRST, WP:Notability and WP:BETTER. Then try writing a draft in a subpage of your user page, such as at User:Com1padres/My Heroes Ability. When you think it's ready, put a {{helpme}} tag on your talk page and ask an experienced editor to look it over before moving it to article space. All that is no guarantee the article won't be deleted, but it dramatically increases the odds it will stick around. If you have more questions, I'll be happy to answer them on my talk page. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page comments by typing --~~~~ or pressing the button at the top of the edit box that looks like a squiggle. HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be doing a fine job in general. I'm a little concerned that User talk:Baron D. Z. has stopped contributing to harp-related articles, a subject he seems to know well. We should all remember to spend a little time nurturing newcomers. Your page move that left a red link from Edna Phillips suggests haste, and no one has tagged for the article's most glaring issue, possible copy-vio, or left any suggestions on talk. Sparafucil (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning, but I honestly can't see how the page move left a red link anywhere. Could you explain more fully? Also, could you explain what you would have liked me to have said to Baron D. Z., who has been contributing sporadically for about 18 months now? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I love coffee too. With no explanation, it wasnt clear whether you moved the page because it was originally Edna phillips (lower case p) or because you felt the name used in funeral notices should be prefered. The Baron expressed himself in his edit summary but was reverted by someone else, again with no attempt to engage in discussion. Edna Phillips (uppercase P) is now blue because I moved the page. If he's a sporadic contributor anyway there's hope he'll come back. I cant say myself how I would encourage someone outside of my areas of expertise, but even a boilerplate welcome like this is a nice gesture. Apologies if my comments come across as sharp, after you specifically asked for blunt; it's my persona's fault  ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem with sharp or blunt. I just wanted clarification so I can take things into account the next time I run into a similar situation. For example, I now know to also create the upper case redirect if needed -- we didn't use to have to do that, but the devs have made the software smarter, so we have to keep up. :)

I haven't been welcoming people with blank talk pages but several months worth of contributions because the standard welcomes just don't work. However, I do like yours. Mind if I shamelessly steal it use it as inspiration?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• You're one of the kindest and most consistent CSD people on the wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for helping me exposing a stealth delete-happy user's untrues. User talk:Fabrictramp/Archive 02#Can you see deleted articles? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• We don't cross paths very often, but I have noticed that you do good work at XfD, particularly AfD. Keep it up! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the time we worked on sorting out minor league players, I found Fabrictramp to be an impartial and thorough administrator with only a single flaw.--kelapstick (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for not mentioning the other glaring flaw.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• So despite being asked to quote references my page still gets deleted? Fantastic. Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia (Run by knowledge facists who delete all things they can't prove or haven't heard of.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoosh (talk • contribs)

Usually when you are adding references to show that your page is not a complete hoax, you add a reference that actually contains the name of your subject. If you'd like to take another stab at the article and can find references that show he existed at all, let me know and I'll be more than happy to walk you through it. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per Secret Maryo Chronicles, you restored an article that had a clear delete AFD on the books at the request of an anonymous editor whose only edit was on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion which is supposed to be for proposed deletions and CSD G6, not CSD G4. This was a very clear, very old uncontested AFD and the so-called new sources consisted of 2 dead links and one non-reliable source, which WP:DRV would have seen quickly. This is very poor judgment for an admin. Andre (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  And your communication on the matter has been very poor and inflammatory. Andre (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  For that, I apologize. Written communication is an imperfect medium, and my comments must seem to you much as yours seem to me. If you think I've made an inflammatory statement, please ask me to clarify. And if I seem to take one of your statements wrong, please politely correct me.

  As to Secret Maryo Chronicles, we clearly are not seeing eye to eye on the use of speedy deletion and when G4 is applicable. The funny thing is, we really have no dispute on the quality (or lack thereof) of the sources -- our only dispute is whether G4 can be used when the article has changed from the version originally seen at AfD, and whether the fact that an editor is anonymous or new makes a difference as to their request. Again, the written medium is not well suited to human communication, because I've obviously failed to get that across.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sandstein

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · socks )

I am opening this administrator review about me as a reaction to the current WP:ANI#Giano thread (permalink). I am concerned that many in that thread, including editors that I respect, have expressed the view that they find my approach to sanctions (such as blocks) to be too harsh, authoritative, or otherwise objectionable. I am interested to learn whether that is indeed the prevailing community feeling and, if yes, how I could bring my admin practice more into line with community expectations.

To that end, and because I do not believe polls (or Poles, or Russians :-) are evil, I am setting up a straw poll, to get a quick overview, as well as a discussion area. I would be grateful if you could assess my approach to the sanctions aspect of admining overall (whether positively or negatively) and especially make constructive recommendations about what I could do to do my job better. Be as offensive as you please, but consider that I am more likely to observe polite criticism than strings of insults. It would also be helpful if you were to note if you have had previous disputes with me or have been the subject of any sanction of mine (I have a very bad memory for names). Finally, I would most appreciate comments whose scope extends beyond the past week or so. Thank you!  Sandstein  16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Editors who think Sandstein reacts too harshly or inconsiderately to what he perceives as disruption

1. - I would say that the reaction over the past year in a consistent manner to what goes against our policies is enough to warrant a long break from perform admining duties. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree (from my observations on my part of Wiki-universe) that Sandstein's actions on established productive users were overly harsh and unproductive. The main problem of Wiki is that we are unable to retain many of established productive users and so we are grossly under-resourced. There are many methods to modify user's behavior: reversions, blankings, warnings, RfCs and other community discussions of user's behavior, short blocks, etc. Long blocks of productive editors usually do more harm then good. They just make controversial users martyrs and create wikidrama but do not remedy the personal attack. I have not fully reviewed the Giano's block but as far as I can tell blanking his personal attack and putting a warning of Giano's talk page would by much more productive than Sandstein's one week block Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Sandstein appears to be on a mission to redefine wikipedia's blocking policy to suit his own delicate tastes, and as such the project would be better served if he was desysopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Sandstein has a God complex and would prefer if everyone saw the world from his POV. He causes more drama with his biased crusade then he solves.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
5. In the two recent instances, Sandstein has given excessively long blocks. In one case the usefulness of the block to progress of the encyclopedia is very doubtful, it appears to have disrupted work and problem resolution. More evidence would be needed to determine if this is a pattern and a continuing problem, and if so what should be done. This quick review called by Sandstein is, in my opinion, inappropriate. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
6. In the one instance I can comment on (COM) Sandstein's approach to blocking seemed to be undertaken with a law & order mentality rather than consideration as to what administrative actions are likely to simultaneously resolve problems and encourage productive contributions to the project. I do not believe that his actions have been against policy or other than in good faith, but that an approach more mindful of the likely consequences of his actions would be warranted. ^Bongo_matic 13:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
7. From personal experience I can safely say that Sandstein is pretty quick to over react. A certain situation, that I was involved in, could have been handled simply with a little research and patience. Instead myself and another user (whom is also my brother) got blocked for restoring comments left on a talk page. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors who think Sandstein's approach to what he perceives as disruption is adequate overall

1. Overall, better than adequate. A realisation that there are areas (people) where allowing another admin to make the decisions would be beneficial, for Sandstein as well as myself (and a few others). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
2. ^^ What he said. You do good work, you get involved in thorny areas, but you need to step aside from dealing with Giano in future. If you can find an admin with the brass ones necessary to wade into the dramafest that such issues usually degenerate into, then do so, and if you stop and think 'I might conceivably be considered involved with this situation,' then go looking for uninvolved support. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Generally, no issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Fine William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Definitely adequate and generally good. Everyone can make a legitimate error here or there, but even in their absence, some users will complain. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
6. I don't agree with Sandstein 100%, but probably 80%. Splitting those into 10% I am right and 10% he is right, that gives an honest 90%. Good enough for me :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
7. In my experience, Sandstein is fair with perceived disruptors (and his sense of perception is good). No issues here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
8. I have seen nothing to make me question this admin's judgment. Chillum 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Solid admin, hoping he does not plan to throw himself under the bus over the Giano thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Toughnest in an administrator is necessary. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
11. ~ mazca ^talk 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
12. In general I think most administrators are far too lean against uncivil editors, so Sandstein's actions surely are needed. Närking (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
13. I find Sandstein to be tough but fair. And that means he's a good admin. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Tough but fair is right, need more admins like this. --BozMo talk 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors who think Sandstein is too reluctant or too soft in dealing with disruption

1. While I do wish he'd go a little farther in blocking, it's nice to have some admins who do not put up with so very much disruption of the project. A regular editor (at least on topics subject to contention) winds up spending twice as much time dealing with self-evident bad faith by soapbox editors and vandals. Quicker and longer blocks would go a long way. LotLE×talk 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors who think Sandstein's straw poll does not cover the primary issues but sidesteps them, and that an Rfc would be more helpful

1. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes; the issue isn't harshness/leniency, but an alleged bias against particular editors – iridescent 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
4. The biggest issue here is your history with Giano and how that means you shouldn't be disciplining him without consensus. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
5. I have been subject banned by Sandstein, so my opinion my be biased. I find unfair, that a German administrator supports a radical German editor even if the administrator admits he doesn't know the subject.

   I don't know the rules of this Wikipedia, I hope they are different than kindergaden rules applayed to me:

   • be good, even if you are frustrated because of manipulations of other editors,
   • bad boys will be kept in a jug, who needs their expertise.

     There is a long tradition of describing Eastern Europe from outside. It's something very new for me that this Wikipedia returns to the imperialistic traditions, massively banning Eastern European editors. You are only one of cog-wheels of the apparatus, it doesn't make you however right.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

   Just noting that I am not German.  Sandstein  10:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

6. As stated above, this review appears inappropriate and a Rfc could be more helpful. The deeper issue is whether civility sanctions which appear to go beyond the sanctions of policy have priority over improvement to the encyclopedia. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
7. I have no personal issues with Sandstein, and I used to think of him as a good admin, but I do not like the idea this poll wants to obfuscate the problem by saying he does not want it limited to the events of last week. Sorry, the East European Mailing List is obviously a big problem, and Sandstein should have known that he could not block Giano. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• Please just never, ever, ever block Giano again. Never ever. Ever. HiDrNick! 16:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  Same goes for MONGO, I learnt that the hard way! --Tango (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is nice to see people plainly stating this double standard instead of leaving it as an unwritten rule. The first step in correcting a problem is drawing attention to it. Chillum 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a double standard to grant leniency to editors who've done a great deal for our encyclopedia; I think it's simple meritocracy. Mind you, I think it should apply across the board, that is, that we should be highly hesitant to block all manner of editors who really do work for the encyclopedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose one could propose a change to WP:NPA, but the current state of the policy and consensus says "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians." Any proposal to change this will meet with my resistance. I don't think merit gives people any right to be abusive to others. Chillum 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I have a very long history of conflict with Sandstein and because he is implicated in far more serious matters, on which I will be commenting, I shall not debate his conduct here. In general, I suggest all Admins should be more reticent with the block button. At the current rate there will soon only be Randy from Boise, Jimbo and the Arbcom left - or is that the grand plan? Giano (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• In particular as it comes to civility. While I'm all in favour of civility, I'm firmly convinced it belongs last on the list of policies to enforce. (Part of that is my cynical view that it's a hopeless case at a place like Wikipedia.) The block button should be used liberally on vandals, cautiously and with great reluctance on good-faith editors, and in those cases, should really take more into account about the encyclopedia (that's why I'm much more supportive of edit warring blocks than civility blocks. For that matter, we need to find more ways to block people for POV-pushing which is one of the most egregious violations of our policies. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Get out of AE and DR in general for a few weeks. Take a proverbial walk around the block. You're very by the book and you seem to have difficulty approaching situations with nuance when it is needed. Admin intervention has to be the means to an end, and that end has to eventually be content creation, and I'm not sure if you see the link in your own actions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• (E/C) The block was entirely appropriate, and I do not consider you involved enough to have to punt it to someone else; obviously not everyone agrees. Almost everyone does agree that the length of the block was excessive. However, I would recommend that you not block Giano again; let another admin do it. Horologium (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Badly worded poll. Not a good start. You should have thought a bit more before using that strange passsive, agent-less wording, "perceived disruption"—or, better still, you might have asked a neutral editor to create a Request for Comments on your admin actions. Who is supposed to have "perceived" some disruption? You yourself? Then please say so. I, for example, would have been interested in characterising your block habits, but there is no alternative in your straw poll that I am willing to sign. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC).

• Thanks, I've rephrased that as "to what he perceives as disruption". You're of course also welcome to advise me on my block habits here.  Sandstein  17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course..? Oh, good. Well, I tried that in May 2009, to not much interest on your part. But if you're serious, you can re-read my views here, as well as your own, which worried me then and worry me still. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

• In line with my review of the block that led to this, I make no comment on Sandstein's involvement in this block, but make a general comment on other aspects of his blocking. I can't put myself in a category that suggests he's "too harsh", as I've agreed with many actions he's taken. But, I'd put myself in the category that says "sometimes, he should be putting more thought into the duration of his blocks". I say this as it isn't the first time I've disagreed with this aspect of his blocking. The escalating nature of block durations should be followed; imo, particularly recently, he's over-stepped them (both on this occasion, and on one that later led to him filing a RFArb - even if that was a mistake, it was very costly, and the RFArb response was not the way to go in those circumstances either). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with what User Tznkai has advised, the wiki is a place that need rules and guidlines and essays and all but it is not all so clear cut, as he says, the nuances are also important to consider. The wiki should not be a cold hard place, wield the tools with a degree of compassion, take a step back for a couple of weeks and remember that you are an editor and an admin. Consider this, what would you do here if you weren't an admin?.. and go enjoy that for a couple of weeks. Also respect to you for opening this review. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• The block seemed reasonable as an action. It would have been more so if it had occurred closer to the time of the remarks. However Sandstein's prior blocking of Giano and the associated drama means that it really should have been someone else to make the block. That's not based on policy (since I see no evidence of any conflict that would actually render Sandstein an involved admin) so much as common sense. Indeed, I suspect that if someone else had made the block it would have had a decent chance to stay put. Overall, aside from this issue I have no worries about Sandstein's judgement as an admin. Ok. Now had more time to look over the discussion. Threatening to block other admins over a difference in opinion is not ok. Full stop. In that context you'd be involved by any sane standard and threatening such blocks is really, really not ok. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Several things here. First, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, correct? How is blocking Giano 12 hours after the fact supposed to prevent anything? Second, the duration of the block was way over the top for calling someone a fool. If that is the worst thing I am ever called, I would be happy. Third, the whole "my way or the highway" attitude you adopted throughout the whole thread really gave me a bad impression. You did not listen to other people's views, you just went at their view with why you believe you were right. Overall, I got the feeling that you thought you were in charge of everything and no one was going to tell you any different. And if someone had a different opinion, you'd just threaten to block them. Less talk, more listening would be a great thing. I would lay off the block button for a while. The power seems to be going to your head. Tex (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Lay aside the block button for awhile. Particularly when you're considering whether to make a potentially controversial block, ask first, get consensus and then block, if there's a general consensus for it. This is especially important when dealing with blocks that come a significant amount of time after the offending action, and don't particularly prevent any disruption. UnitAnode 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm puzzled. Sandstein evidently felt the foolish remark was egregious enough to justify a block, but gave Giano no request or opportunity to remove the remark. Since over 12 hours had elapsed with no evidence of continued wrongdoing, the matter could readily have been raised at ANI before blocking, instead of blocking first despite previous disputes, taking it to ANI then refusing to give any weight to good faith concerns about the way of proceeding. Indeed, threatening others with blocks for reinstating the remark and seeking discussion. At that point the line is clearly crossed into misuse of the threat of blocking, and I'd hope that Sandstein will reflect on this, withdraw such threats and give an undertaking not to repeat that action. As to the egregious remark, it remains in place. If it's so bad, why haven't those who feel that way done something to get it removed? . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we didn't want to edit war with admin KillerChihuahua, who had already reinstated it once? The edit was removed twice, first readded by Giano (so he clearly had the opportunity to remove the remark and was aware that at least one editor saw it as a personal attack), then readded by KillerChihuahua. You can hardly blame other editors for not removing it again... Finally, as for continued wrongdoing: look at the block log of Giano 2 for personal attacks. The timeframe here is not 12 hours, it's a pattern of months and months. That the PA was only raised on ANI some ten hours after the remark was made is no excuse to let it just pass. It's not some old edit that was unearthed, it were his last edits before the block. Fram (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • KC reinstated it with the recommendation to discuss the foolish remark with Giano, as is normally considered polite: ask the offender to refactor their remarks rather than deleting their vote, which in itself wasn't offtopic. For some reason no-one seems to have made that request. Given the pattern, why not raise it on ANI and get consensus, and why threaten those that disagree with the approach with a completely unwarranted block? Good way of getting short term drama, not a good way of dealing with long term problems. . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If someone else was threatened with a block, I should reread it to see what happened. If you are talking about the threat against KillerChihuahua, it should perhaps not have been made, but she was acting very hypocritical in whole this episode: she removed an imaginary personal attack from the opposition, but restored a real personal attack from a friend. It gets hard in such a situation to take any advice she gives in her edit summaries seriously. Fram (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I have already replied to this very foul accusation on ANI, but will repeat myself here, with the added note that you are in no position to guess who my friends might and might not be; your efforts at mind reading are falling very short. Your accusations of hypocrisy are based upon a flawed understanding of my actions. Your opinion that the attack on me was "imaginary" is your opinion, to be sure, but perhaps merely stating that you disagree rather than insinuating that I am hysterical or insane by characterizing it as "imaginary" would be more civil. My reply to you on ANI, for the benefit of those reading your hostile post here, is as follows:

  I mentioned that myself (the post I felt was inappropriate vs. the one Sandstein felt was inappropriate), to contrast how I handled it vs. how Sandstein handled it: the edit Sandstein linked has the edit summary of "please discuss this with G." This is advising discussion, rather than removing another's comment. It is, as Ottava Rima had pointed out, restoring a comment which was arguably improperly removed. On that same page, I had removed a comment I thought was a personal attack; another editor disagreed and restored it. Sandstein did not block them. Nor did I, nor do I think a block would have been appropriate. His personal view is that the content in Giano's post is a personal attack. He is entitled to his option. He is not entitled to go running roughshod over everyone enforcing his personal opinion about what is and is not rude. So I suggested discussion on the post he thought was inappropriate, he blocked and suggested I be blocked when I restored the post; but I did not demur at all when the post I objected to was restored, but posted a comment regarding it. I have not been hypocritical at all; indeed, I've done precisely as I advised. Sandstein, however, never offered to block the editor who replaced the post I objected to, as his double standard is intact.KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

random observer here - i think the perceived hypocrisy remark stems from kc's decision to remove comments made by collectonion(?) without first asking that editor to refactor, which is how kc is saying those situations should be handled. untwirl(talk) 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that isn't what happened. Giano's post was a view on a FAR; removing his post was denyng his view. Secondly, I have not said one should first ask the editor refactor, as you state. Its generally good practice but it isn't "how kc is saying those situations should be handled." You may have me confused with davesouza, who does offer that advice above. Thirdly, the bit I removed had nothing to do with the page it was on - had nothing to do with the FAR, it was just C talking smack about me - and this on a second page from the original page where she made her complaints, in effect venue shopping. I had tried to discuss with her and been rebuffed - she removed my post from her talk page. She later went to ANI and claimed "admin abuse" of myself and SlimVirgin, neither of us had taken any admin action whatsoever against her, and I had warned her precisely once. Please explain how me following my own advice, not edit waring and not even complaining when a post I view as a personal attack is restored without even the argument that it is the correct page for the post, or advice to try to talk to the editor - which in fact I had already done and been rebuffed - might in any wild situation be remotely viewed as not following "my own advice". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not a view on the FAR at all. It is not because a personal attack is started with "keep" that it expresses any view. None of his comments had anything to do with the article or the objections against it. Apart from that, I don't think it it useful to continue this discussion if you feel that "you removed an imaginary personal attack" = "you are insane". Fram (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you cannot tell the difference between "insinuating" and "=" you may be right about the usefulness of trying to communicate. Is English your second language? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You believe that when I state "you removed an imaginary personal attack", I insinuate "you are insane". You indicate that when reading between the lines, these two are the same somehow, or that it was the message I tried to convey in a subliminal way. If you don't somehow equate the two statements, then where did you get the idea that I insinuated something like that? And if you do equate the two statements, then why do you start about my knowledge of English? Fram (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are obviously differences of opinion on interpreting remarks in context, perhaps you're imagining things? More seriously, offtopic remarks continuing the denigration of other editors from another page don't belong in the FAR, and removing them was in line with talk page convention that irrelevant remarks can be redacted. Removing Giano's personal remarks with a request that he reconsider his argument, while leaving his "keep" and signature, would also be an option: deleting his statement altogether was out of line. Subsequently blocking Giano for making a statement that was apparently so innocuous that it was left in place was questionable, threatening other admins with blocks for differing on how to deal with the situation was completely over the top and indicates that more cautious use of the tools is needed in future. . . dave souza, talk 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps ;-) The remark by Collectonian was not off-topic, it explained the reason why this was brought to FAR (both the problems with the article, and the problems he had with other editors in addressing these problems by other means). Redacting the remarks with "personal attack removed" was not in line with talk page conventions (since it was not helpful but only poisoning the well). I agree that the better solution would have been to let the "keep" stand and only remove the personal attack, but that seems to me a minor point. To conclude that the remark was innocuous because it has been left in place ignores the fact that it was removed, but reinstated by the original editor first, and an admin second. To remove it again would have been seen as edit warring, but letting it be is seen as evidence that the remark wasn't so bad after all... As for your final statement, "threatening other admins with blocks for differing on how to deal with the situation was completely over the top and indicates that more cautious use of the tools is needed in future. . .", did you mean this as a reference to "Sandstein, this was an insanely bad block, so much so that I'm wondering if we shouldn't block you for disruption."?[1] As far as I can tell, this is the first statement in that discussion that fits your description. Fram (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I didn't think FAR was a venue for furthering editor disputes. Anyone worried that removing the remark itself would have been edit warring could of course have asked KC if she had any objections, but that doesn't seem to have been anyone's priority. As for "I'm wondering if we shouldn't block you for disruption", perhaps you're imagining it, but if we stretch that to being an indirect threat, this slightly escalates it but is a reasonable response, "in fact I intend to block you should you do this again"[2] is what we call in the trade a direct threat. Sandstein's recent block lengths do appear rather punitive, going for the maximum or more regardless of the disruption it causes, instead of giving priority to the benefit to the project. Allways a judgment call, but seems to be erring on the side of overblocking these days. . . dave souza, talk 12:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And it wasn't used for that. And the fact that KC reinstated the remark seems to indicate that she had objections, no? AS for which part of the escalating back-and-forth was still acceptable and which went over the line, I believe that they both went clearly beyond what's acceptable. Insuch an escalation, it is rarely useful to only look at the final comment (which is by the definition of such an escalation the worst), but better to look at all sides and notice that it just follows a logical course towards self-destruction. Blocking Sandstien for the Giano block would have been very wrong, blocking KillerChihuahua for reinstating the Giano PA would also have been very wrong. In the end, neither of those happened, so it's probably best to leave it at that. Fram (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's leave it that less ill considered blocking is advisable. Which is where I came in. . dave souza, talk 15:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're generally a reasonable sysop, and I applaud your willingness and desire to improve. The ability to recognize and address mistakes is a trait far too few people have. But I agree with some of the above criticisms. I think you should take a step back and try to regain perspective with regards to the purpose of blocking, which is solely to prevent damage to the project. While Giano's block may have well been justified at the time of the offending remark, blocking 12 hours after-the-fact under relatively controversial circumstances was not appropriate. That said, I also have a few comments on your general activity as an admin, before this particular incident. I think that at times you're a bit too hung up on policies and rules. I've known you to be very knowledgeable, but I think you sometimes let strict rules get in the way of proper judgment and more importantly, common sense. I don't really see the point of a straw poll here, since as far as I can see, no further action needs to be taken. Oh, and work on articles more. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• [ec] With perhaps too cursory a look, my sense is that a block was appropriate but you're involved enough that you shouldn't have. In general I think that anyone who blocks and then asks for a review should have just gone to ANI to start. AMiB's case does a pretty good job covering the bases. I agree in any rational world you wouldn't be involved, but given the topic and the strong feelings involved I think you should have not use the tools here. In general I've found you to be a fine admin, even if I don't always line up on the same side in debates. Hobit (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Warning incoming tl;dr. Hi Sanderstein, I saw this page go up early today (my time - east coast US), and have struggled all day with what I wanted to say. First, a little background: I noticed your edits quite some time ago, long before I became an admin., and I was truly impressed; you seem to be a fine person - honest, dedicated to the 'pedia, and and always a polite and civil editor. I viewed you (and still view you) as one of the "big guns" around here. Now, the last couple days I've noticed several things that give me pause. First: you blocked an editor for a MONTH for this edit. Another admin (Law) asks you to reconsider, and after an hour and a half unblocks CoM. You haul him to ArbCom. Giano makes a comment about someone being a "fool", and you block for a week - obviously you realized that it was going to be controversial because you posted such to ANI. Then ... you call for a block of KC for working a situation. You've invited replies to your actions, but rather than listen to them, you defend your actions. I really appreciate the pressure that admins. who deal with difficult situations are under, but I think it's important that they listen to those around them too. I understand that we have policies and guidelines, but I also realize that there are very real people on the other end of each edit. People get involved, they get emotional, and sometimes they speak their minds in a very blunt way. That's not always a bad thing Sandstein. Your ability to maintain a professional decorum is commendable, to the extreme. However, many folks around here have spent untold hours on articles, and when they get lambasted, they are naturally going to react with some emotion. Admins are here to help sort things out, clean up things, and help others in being productive at building an encyclopedia. We're not some sort of "police force". With the thousands of folks who are volunteering their time here, there are bound to be disagreements; communication is fundamental! Talk to folks. Most people here are well educated, reasonable, good people. Reading the words on a policy is a good thing, trying to strong-arm a perception of the words (rather than the overall intent), is not.

I don't really want to get into to each individual incident that has brought this situation about, but I would like to address the "said cabal". There is a perception among many editors is that some sort of "admin cabal" exists. I do have to say that these recent events should certainly put that theory to rest. But the truth of the matter is this. Admins. are all familiar with the target painted on their backs. In that respect, there should be some understanding of how we are perceived. Yes, we are all just individuals working behind a keyboard, but, we are also aware of the responsibility involved with a couple extra buttons.

This brings me to my primary point that I'd like to make. WP editors have a policy they should follow. WP:OWN. This same policy should also apply to administrative actions. We don't "own" blocks and protections. If someone questions, or "edits" an admin. action - then it's possible that the edit or change was done to improve the project. Talk. Discuss. Become familiar with the folks we're working with. Blocks should be a last resort, and only to prevent some sort of distruction that's going on. Please step back for a time, consider what others are saying, and think about the big picture. Does it make the encyclopedia better? I think you're damn fine person, and a good admin., but sometime we get too close to things, and fail to see the big picture. — Ched :  ?  01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is this only about your block of Giano? What about your block expansion of Russavia which invites drama. What about your block of ChildofMidnight? You've worked in AE for a long time, but did not know how to enforce with an appropriate time? Hmm.. the three cases in a row make me shake my head.--Caspian blue 01:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• You are trigger-happy and your block lengths are damaging and arbitrary. You believe your 'job' is a flow chart. I see my 'job' as a brainstorming session. You act as if Wikipedia is a rules-based system, when it was actually designed as a principles-based system to allow discretion on when to act, and more importantly - when not to act. You constantly play the victim in that you saying you are just doing your job. You are a bot, and unfortunately I do not see a shut-off button. Feel free to add this comment to our ARB case - I'm sure they would like to be apprised of your recent controversial blocks. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to dime people out. Start exercising better discretion and lay off the blocks. Law _{type! snype?} 06:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Either Wikipedia discards its civility policy at all, or it applies to the likes of Giano just as well. The first outcome would be better, because for now the policy is effectively just a tool to win content disputes (or even some more petty ones) and many users are eager to pretend offended, but it is probably unrealistic. And no, warnings would produce just as much drama, this is not a solution. Colchicum (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Dude, you are worrying about feedback from people who think 'shut up you uneducated fool' is merely a 'view' on a FAR that merits restoration and discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has relatively few administrators who are willing to make difficult blocks within longstanding disputes. You are one who does. The scarcity of administrators who are willing to stick their necks out is one of the reasons why certain disputes drag on for years. This website hasn't been very good at solving those problems. What typically happens to the rare breed of administrator who takes this path is they walk on hot coals. Any bold move they take will draw the wrath of an entrenched faction, and if the administrator intervenes in multiple disputes those factions will form tactical alliances. Unless the administrator is very smart and very careful, those tactical alliances will amalgamate into a campaign to destroy the administrator's reputation. One set of people view the administrator as a gunslinging cowboy who needs to be stopped, while another set of people view the administrator as an admirable individual. No matter how those factions compare in actual sizes, the former group tends to be louder, bolder, and more dedicated. Relatively few people on either side look into the issues carefully enough to form an independent opinion. In other words you've walked into a political quagmire. It is not in your self-interest to be here, so the question to ask is whether your conscience places you here. In the eyes of observers who otherwise take no sides, a decision to remain (thus acting against your self-interest) would be perceived as nonrational. It's possible to arrive at this type of spot for the best of reasons and to remain for the best of reasons, but there's little to be gained from it. Durova³²⁰ 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Durova, as you are the person so keen to get your hands on the Eastern European Mailing list archives in order to impartially verify them - should you really be commenting here - being so impartial? Giano (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein has requested input. Giano's objection seems quite imaginative. If there's any weight to it then Sandstein may take it under advisement. Durova³²⁰ 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support tarring and feathering Sandstein is a fine contributor who does a lot of good work and tries his best to be fair. I think he overreached and chose actions that resulted in unnecessary disruption and drama. Admin action is to resolve conflicts and to aid in building and maintaining the encyclopedia and requires judgment, delicacy and common sense. I think Sandstein's recent actions were overzealous and not carefully thought through. I hope he'll consider slowing down, considering alternatives to using his tools, and soliciting broader input on how best to handle difficult situations in the future. But I think his public flogging has been punishment enough. I hope he won't be too discouraged by the critiques, we're all a lot of savages. Most of his contributions that I've come across have been very constructive and none of us are perfect. Now it's probably time we all got back to POV pushing and other drama mongering as this feud has mostly run its course, at least for now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Generally I'm impressed with the work you do, Sandstein. You are one of the few admins that are willing to dig through complicated and misleading requests at AE, and deal decisively with those that should be. We have a real shortage of admins in that category, and to me your work is greatly valued. I do, to a point, agree with some of the above users - it would benefit everyone if you occasionally rethought exactly how long a block should last, and what the block really is going to achieve. Some valid, but minor, issues with some of your blocking have been rather blown out of proportion here thanks to the simple presence of a Giano block - which tend to inspire mind-blowing drama even through no fault of Giano himself. Overall, in my view you're an excellent admin and one that Wikipedia is lucky to have. ~ mazca ^talk 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• If editors cannot participate here without hurling insults, then they should be blocked, period. This should be applied no matter how much they contribute, and especially in cases where there is a long pattern of incivility. I see no problem with Sandstein's actions in the event that triggered this review. ATren (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias require knowledgeable participants, and knowledgeable participants have large egos. Insults will always be thrown. So, if you follow the above then we wouldn't have an encyclopedia. CIVIL and NPA makes it clear that the first response is to ignore a behavior, not to instantly block. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just, no. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA don't say that the first thing you do is ignore such comments? Have you bothered to read either lately? They've had that language for a very long time. It is quite specific on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have confused what the policies recommend that the recipients of such comments do if they encounter a possibly ambiguous incivil comment from someone who might have been acting in good faith and merely misjudged the faceless aspect of text communication, and what administrators are expected to do when they see a blatant and unjustified attack. MickMacNee (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course I am the most notoriously evil bastard on the project so give this what weight you like, Sandstein, but for what it's worth I think the correct response to Giano's comment would have been "hey, please tone down the rhetoric a bit" and not get drawn into the flamefest (Giano never could resist an argument). The correct response to the criticism of the block would have been "D'oh! Sorry". I see no evidence of systematic abuse or bad judgement, just one mistake when dealing with a notoriously prickly customer. It helps to remember that he's Italian. It also helps to talk to Bishonen in case of any uncertainty; in this case I think Bish would (correctly) point out that the participants were unlikely to drive each other off the project and probably would have enjoyed a "full and frank exchange of views". Guy (Help!) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• All editors should be suseptible to being blocked, no matter what their contributions are to Wikipedia. It matters not to me, how many medals, awards, etc an editor may have, he/she is not imune to Wikipedia rules. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Your position is at best naive. Administrators daily get away with behaviour that would have a regular editor blocked. Best to to stick to the facts, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To my recollection, I've had no problems with administrators. I still prefer 'the tough approach'. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You may not yet have experienced problems personally, but that's no reason to go around with your eyes closed. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of how various blocks for PAs fit into actual policy

This is a straight text-lift from WP:NPA. Emphasis is added by me, where I have particular question as to how blocking for non-repeated personal attacks fits into the policy.

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration, such as being subjected to a community ban.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

In all honesty, the more I look into this situation, the less I believe that blocks like the one leveled at Giano are ever acceptable. A one-off personal attack, which wasn't repeated (restoration is not the same thing as repetition), doesn't fit any of the above criteria for blocking. I'd be interested in hearing from some of those above who appear to support an unnuanced, hard line in such matters. UnitAnode 05:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in participating in this discussion (my emphasis would be on other parts of the policy), but I suggest that this administrator review is not the best place for policy discussions. If there are no objections, I'll move this thread to WT:NPA and leave a link here.  Sandstein  06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the key text is Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". This pattern of personal attacks has been going on for years now. Chillum 07:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The attack was a one-off. Unless we construe "recurring" so broadly as to mean "personal attacks on different people, weeks or months apart" (which is a very strained interpretation of that word, indeed) there's no justification for blocking for one personal attack. UnitAnode 11:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - a pattern is not once a month. A pattern is not once a week. It is back to back and non stop. Otherwise, you could be blocked for a week every time you say something slightly less than civil, which has happened quite a few times. The rules are not based on totals but frequency, otherwise, everyone here for more than a year would start being blocked for weeks on end, which includes most of our admin corps. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Emphasize what you like, but it's not even so much that the points I've emphasized are more important as it is that you have to almost ignore those points entirely to block in this case. UnitAnode 11:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's understandible that some editors have 'shorter tempers' then others, none of us are perfect (as they're human beings behind the accounts). However, it's not asking too much to have frequent 'tantrums' curtailed to some degree. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. However, the "curtailing" should not -- at least according to policy on the matter -- include blocking except in the cases outlined above. UnitAnode 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you people the remotest idea how far you have digressed from the title of this debate? - Clearly not. While I accept an opportunity to start a: "let's slap ourselves on the back while simultaneously slapping Giano" debate must be positively orgasm-inducing for you; you are forgetting that Sandstein does not exist solely to block me. In fact, he seems to block quite a few others also, and even has his own discussion page devoted to acquiring even more power. Additionally, he seems to have the support of the Eastern European Mailing list, which, as a subject, should worry you far more than the subject of the Evil Giano, but of course that would require some deep thought to fathom. So why not leave me alone, fathom that and concentrate on someone other, or is it that I am the only subject that interests you all? - a simple "yes" will do - as that does seem to be case. Giano (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I'm here to support Sandstein's tough style as an administrator towards any editors. I'm not here to slap you, Giano. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• My points were meant to apply to Sandstein's aggressive style generally, of which your case is just a part. I do hope you weren't lumping me with the "slapping Giano" crowd. UnitAnode 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano, seeing as how there is no question above saying "Does Sandstein's making bad blocks combined with his disregard for Conflict of Interest and personal biased mean that he has crossed the lines of what acceptable for adminship and he should have his adminship revoked immediately to prevent further harm", then the discussion will inevitably avoid the whole matter at hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a review on Sandstein's administratorship, not Giano's wiki-behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments and analysis were meant to apply to administrators generally, and Sandstein particularly, as too many administrators are far too quick to block for NPA. I just don't see support for such aggressive use of the block button in policy. UnitAnode 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• As Sandstein says above, this administrator review is not the best place for policy discussions, but the issues raised depend directly on whether admin sanctions should be approved as going beyond explicit policy, and should give priority to punishment for incivility instead of seeking to resolve issues, as the policy currently indicates. In exceptional cases the community can impose sanctions, but this review should not be seen as validating blocking beyond explicit policy by individual admins. . . dave souza, talk 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

I've been involved in just enough controversy over the past couple of months that I thought that a wider review might be a good idea. Have at it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Deletion of reference to the Molten_Salt_Reactor that had same goals as ITER, achieved 40 years earlier: ITER (14:17, 15 November 2009, SarekOfVulcan) seems intentional vandalism (preventing knowledge-base merging). Judge yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.174.243 (talk • contribs)

  I came here by footsteps of IP:62.68.174.243 (blocked for disruption) and would say that the deletion of that strong unreferenced claim was justified. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• To attempt to find faults with a Vulcan, simply isn't .... "logical" ;) To be honest, I tend to take long breaks from the dramaz boardz ... so I could have missed something, but I haven't seen anything worth raising a fuss over. — Ched :  ?  18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• A pretty reasonable admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• You will single-handedly ruin the entire Wikipedia project. You should be legally prevented from reproducing. You are the spawn of Satan. Oh hang on, you're pretty good actually. Cheers Manning (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• At least two obvious violations of the administrator policy, specifically WP:UNINVOLVED + Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Conflicts_of_interest[3][4]. This led you to then quote the Wikipedia:Community_ban#Community_ban policy, then directly violating the part you just quoted[5][6]. If you think I am wrong or you require further clarification, please say so. Though I think you already fully aware of this.--Otterathome (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• How does being involved in closing an AfD you nominated make SarekOfVulcan involved in a content dispute with you? WP:UNINVOLVED states "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role... is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute." Closing an AFD is an administrative role, not a content dispute. Can you please cite the part of the policies you linked that verify your claim? --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• My block log includes two blocks made by this administrator, yet I am of the opinion that SarekOfVulcan comes out of the "top drawer" of administrators. He is not afraid to use the tools, but he is fair in his application of them. Some administrators tend to be involved in drama and controversy more than others, but this is not a negative quality. Wikipedia would be better if there were more like SarekOfVulcan who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do some of the dirty work. All that being said, both those blocks he made on me were bullshit! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is it your normal Modus Operandi to threaten non-admins blocks because you disagree with them [7]? If I was in your position, I would just state that "I disagree with your view and here are my reasons for doing so are...", rather than trying making ad hominem attacks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  Two things I'd like to note here. Firstly, what you are describing appears to be a mischaracterization of the facts. Secondly, it is customary for an admin to offer fair warnings if users are behaving in a manner that deserves a block. Fair warnings are not "threats". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a fair characterization was that there was a clear disagreement of opinion in a heated debate. Whether a bot adding hundreds of links to a non-Wikipedia site is linkspam or not is debateable, as there is no clear precedent to point to, only vague guidance at WP:LINKSPAM. In this instance, it would appear that SarekOfVulcan inserted himself into the discussion at WP:ANI the behest of BOZ, and used this event as an opportunity to issue a block warning. Its hard not to view this as an unwarranted threat, especially since the ANI thread was not about me. I was seeking clarfication and resolution to the issues raised (by me and others), I don't think a block warning was appropriate in the circumstances. If SarekOfVulcan has a view about the issues raised at WP:VPP#Say no to Linkspam: OCLC Online Computer Library, then by all means he should have made his views known. But using a block to get his views across is not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, Sarek warned you on the AN/I thread at 15:55, and as I was reading the thread I saw fit to notify him using the diff you point to above, at 16:08, that in July you had been warned by three admins (User:Pedro, User:Tanthalas39, User:Jennavecia) both to not demand the block of another user, and to not continue AN/I discussions that had been considered closed. As I recall, the block warnings were issued very sternly at that time. I suspect that since you were once again doing both of these things, Sarek took it upon himself to block you. BOZ (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@Gavin Collins - As far as I can see, SarekOfVulcan followed best practices in this disagreement. After repeatedly referring (quite erroneously, if I may say so) to Cybercobra's bot activity as "link spamming", you called for Cybercobra to be blocked if the user failed to comply with your inappropriate demands. SarekOfVulcan warned you. Since you ignored the warning, you were quite rightly blocked. Virtually everyone involved in what you have called a "heated debate" disagreed with your "linkspam" interpretation, yet you chose to ignore this apparent consensus. Sarek acted correctly, blocking you for what was essentially bad behavior. It had nothing to do with "his views". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I have received several messages on my talk page to say that the block was neither justified or appropriate, and clearly there is no consensus that Cyberbot's activity has concensus, otherwise the ANI thread would not have arisen, and the thread on the village pump may run for some time yet. There are two sides to every arguement, and SarekOfVulcan will surely come across situations where other editors do not agree with him. Handing out blocks as if they were substitutes for dialogue with his opponents is not the way forward. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it. You were blocked for ignoring a warning and continuing with accusations and block demands, not for any sort of disagreement over the bot activity. Ignoring warnings from administrators is not the way forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to see them as part of the process. Sometimes it is appropriate to request another editor to be blocked, and WP:ANI is definetly the forum for doing this. The whole point of the discussion at WP:ANI was to discuss exactly this issue. If you can't discuss the issue, what is the point of ANI? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You were absolutely right to discuss it in the first place, but having said your piece you continued to bang on about it being linkspam (when it wasn't) and calling for a block for it (which would be unreasonable, because it wasn't linkspamming) despite umpteen folks saying it was a template issue. Then having been warned not to continue to claim it was linkspam, you did it again. Your persistence was your undoing, and you were given fair warning before the block. Incredibly, you continued to make these inappropriate statements after the block, which reinforces the fact that it was a good block in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be appropriate to review ANI complaint ? Some of the diffs dicussed there were a bit undiplomatic. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Give it a shot, see what useful stuff you can get out of it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sarek needs to stop stalking and hounding Otter. That he continued this disruptive activity immediately AFTER Otter's ANI report is especially disruptive. An admin should really have shown better judgment and restraint. There is no excuse for acting in an admin role towards an editor with whom who he's come into content disputes. And chasing a frustrated editor to new threads after being asked to stop the stalking and harassment is totally unacceptable. This behavior needs to stop. I've also seen Sarek involved in other questionable activity. He seems to fancy being a Wikicop rather than approaching disputes in a way that will help resolve them collegially and collaboratively. I hope he takes this input to heart and tries to improve how he treats editors who are having difficulty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've seen Sarek's work on several pages, and I think he's a pretty good admin. He's been patient and fair in his dealings. Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. These claims of "stalking" and "hounding" are made without merit. SarekOfVulcan is simply doing what any diligent admin should be doing. Administrators are supposed to "police" Wikipedia, and like any other police they will occasionally draw fire. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• SarekOfVulcan has just reverted an edit that I made to the lead of the article, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. This reversion came within 11 minutes of the initial edit, which was clearly supported by consensus on the article's Talk page. I cited this consensus in my edit summary. The article has a history of being highly contentious, and this ham-handed effort by SOV more closely resembles the work of a brand-new editor than an experienced and trusted Admin. It suggests to me that the many concerns expressed above, by COM and others, have merit. Perhaps SOV should have his admin privileges revoked and, after six months without further incident, he can be encouraged to reapply. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  As a frequent editor of the ACORN page mentioned, I have noticed User:71.57.8.103 as a destructive WP:SPA. The edit reverted by SarekOfVulcan was a bad edit pushing a WP:SOAPBOX. The SPA hasn't quite entered into vandalism territory, but I certainly don't see anything bad that would come of long-term semi-protection of the article to prevent the interference of anonymous SPAs. LotLE×talk 16:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

SOV and LotLE happen to be the two editors on ACORN who are POV pushing, and defying the consensus reached by the rest of the editors working on the article. This edit was first drafted by Wikidemon on his User Talk page in a discussion about the ACORN article. No one dares to suggest that WD is a "destructive WP:SPA." 71.57.8.103 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• By and large I find that you are one of the better admins. Fairly calm and dispassionate. Maybe it's just the name having an impact on me. :-) Hobit (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Much as I dislike administrator reviews, I wanted to comment here. This administrator is particularly kind to new editors, and I think that is an especially important trait -- Samir 05:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well now, free potshots at admins. Umm, you smell funny? ... In all seriousness, SerekofVulcan does not make the list of admins that need to be vigorously shaken until they behave better, On the contrary, my dealings with him have been pleasant.   Nezzadar ☎   18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Recently one admin made personal attacks to me and told me that my English is not correct etc. Now SarekOfVulcan also came to my page, on the same topic. And he said we should talk. He didn't say "we will revert all your moves". I think this is very fair. Esp. since the articles on geography of Portugal need improvement. Another admin just called me on another's user talk page "disruptive". This is bad. I think SarekOfVulcan in turn was very friendly and helpful. Thank you SarekOfVulcan! TrueColour (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• I have just found that SarekOfVulcan had, at the beginning of the month, (to me) inexplicably removed the state of Massachusetts from the category containing States of the United States (see this edit). I was quite interested to see that this editor is also an admin ... an admin under review, at that. I think that SarekOfVulcan's contrarian edit illustrated here is not supportive of consensus, something that is essential among handlers of the mop-and-bucket, though something we advise to flout among editors (i.e. Be Bold). I am curious to hear whether folks consider SarekOfVulcan to be an admin who conflates the responsibilities of adminship with the freedoms of editorship. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  *sigh* That was a HotCat issue -- I couldn't use it and leave an edit summary. Category:New England states is already in Category:States of the United States, so having it in both was redundant. If you were curious, you could have asked before....

  Note, please, that Admin Review is a process initiated by the admin in question, not something imposed from outside, so "an admin under review" is misleading. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a content issue, as well ... therefore, I should not have tendered it here where only admin power application should be presented. You are under review, regardless of whether you put yourself there or were drawn into it by another party; that is the nature of a page such as this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    If you want to delete this section and start fresh, that's fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• So, an Admin is requesting others review his own actions and people assume that means he is under some sort of review for bad behavior? Maybe I am just misunderstanding the process as I am new to a lot of this.

That aside, my thanks to SoV for the welcome and discussing what is and is not permissable in my edits of articles about a production I am highly involved with. I'm greatful for him talking to me before I may have made a mistake to ensure I had read through the relevant COI docs and such (which I did, btw, and have been careful about my edits). That to me is going above and beyond... instead of waiting for a potential mistake, he politely helped ensure I would never make one. Thanks SoV. RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Sarek does not seem to be registering the feedback he's getting on exercising restraint and good judgment. He just dished out a week long block for these comments [8] where there is no incivility. This continues a pattern of behavior where Sarek does not behave in a manner appropriate for an administrator but acts with immaturity. This includes edit warring and refactoring an editor's comments, inappropriate and disruptive blocks, showing arrogance and incivility in discussions. This is very troubling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The incivility was over the past day before that diff. What that diff shows is a refusal to recognize that any of his comments that I had pasted in immediately above that diff were incivil.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So you blocked someone for refusing to agree with you? Yikes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A block of Ottava was justifiable. I wouldn't have done it, but I also don't have a problem with it. I had made a comment the day before Sarek made that block that such a thing was likely. Prodego ^talk 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problems at all with admin actions here. Those that are willing to wade into contentious issues to settle the disputes and sanction problem editors if necessary are likely to be subject to attacks and catcalls from those who may have been on the receiving end of such. Separate the honest criticism from the "I'm a victim!" revenge-type commentary, and there's really little fault to find with SoV's actions. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Sarek is a very trustworthy admin who demonstrates sound judgement. I've only had good experiences working with Sarek.Astral Highway (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• I personally have always found Sarek very fair. If he queries any of my actions, I have always found it worthwhile to go back and re-examine them, and I have not come across an example where this did not appear (to me) to hold true for queries addressed to others (however taken by the other editor). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan blocked me because I was "missing the point" and because I copied discussions from my discussion page onto an ANI after I specifically stated that I am doing that because I do not know how to put in the links properly. I contested the block and was unblocked. Then he tried to get me blocked as a Sockpuppet. I am not a sockpuppet. I only use one account as was proved here [9] He does not seem to be a reasonable person at all. It is not reasonable to block someone because the person is "missing the point" on an ANI when it is the persons first time on an ANI. He seems a bit immature to be given the responsibility to be an admin on Wikipedia. PennySeven (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually...the SPI DID show that you were a sock of a blocked user, but the decision had been made to allow you to 'start over'. It also shows that when things went wrong this time you wanted to delete your userpage and return as an IP, but were told you couldn't do that. It also shows your extremely disruptive habit of talkpage bombing - six posts in 60 minutes, none of which were replies to anybody, and all of which said the same thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are stating is false and untrue: to be a sock you have to use two accounts at the same time. I see that Smith stopped editing in May 20O8. I only started editing in September 2008. Please, what you are stating is false and untrue. Please show me where "the SPI DID show that you were a sock of a blocked user" is true. Thank you. Please stop your personal attacks. WP:NPA If you cannot prove what you say, then please apologize for your personal attack. I specifically request that. Thank you.PennySeven (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, this is getting ridiculous! What a waste of time. I have better things to do in my life.PennySeven (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No Penny. If you are indefinitely blocked - as you were - and create another account to get round the block - as you did - that is socking. I don't need to show you - you've already provided the diff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An extremely vindictive user who has violated the admin policy, harassment policy, the banning policy, have also gamed the system, have shown to have poor communication, and baited other users. Some of these policies and guidelines have been violated multiple times within the last two months on a number of occasions, warnings seem to have absolutely no affect. User noticeably likes to police Wikipedia, but if you get in a disagreement with this user or they dislike what you are doing, expect them to police you like you've just turned down their bribe request. Except according to a number of other admins, this is all completely acceptable behaviour as they're just an admin doing their job.--Otterathome (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you forget that you already "voted" near the beginning of this admin review? Getting your digs in once against an admin who has taken action against you is jaded enough, but twice? C'mon... Tarc (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That was last month, the users type behaviour has not only continued but got progressively worse, showing that what I said before made no difference at all.--Otterathome (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As best as I can recall, I've had no direct with Sarek as an admin, either as an "accused" or "accuser". I've seen a lot of his comments, warnings, and blocks on noticeboards and various talk pages. To this outside observer, his actions as an admin appear to be well reasoned and appropriate. I would trust him if I had a problem or if someone had a problem with me. I have no experience (again, so far as I can recall) with Sarek as an editor (other than seeing his vandalism reverts) or in a content dispute on a talk page. —Finell (Talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any personal trucks with User:SarekOfVulcan. However, there is a certain one-sidedness I've experienced with him. There was a revert war (don't worry; nobody took it beyond 3RR yet) on the SCUM Manifesto article about the use of the word "feminazi". I was the only one "warned" for "edit warring" even though I was by no stretch of the imagination the only one reverting the edits of others. In fact, I was the only one warned period, even though some people were not assuming good faith and actually tell me to "go away" and "you're trolling". No warnings handed out for that. I understand it's very easy to be one-sided when you're dealing with a minority perspective, but I think that could be improved upon. No tough feelings, though, Sarek; it's just the Internet. Macai (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of piling on, I continually consider and advise others that SoV is "one of the good ones". Nope, I'm not cabal-approved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anietor_blacklisted_from_Twinkle, SarekOfVulcan either fundamentally misunderstands WP:VAND, a particularly well-understood and well-known policy, or is a very poor judge of good faith. The edits in question were not vandalistic by any stretch of the policy or imagination, being a completely misguided but well-intentioned attempt by a regular editor in good standing to include controversial information in an article. This wasn't a particularly borderline case to judge, so I'm disappointed that he failed to do so correctly. The apparent misunderstanding about linkspam mentioned above is a lapse in a somewhat peripheral policy area - this is an important failure to understand a key idea in interacting with other editors and interpreting their edits.

It was also disappointing to see this comment, claiming incorrectly that he had the support of "several admins", when actually he was the only admin in favour of removing the blacklisting. This is a much more minor point, but I'd expect a good admin to be familiar with the admin commmunity, or at least with the pages with the relevant lists.

The suggestion he made to Anietor and the comments above show he is on the right track as an administrator, but I'd recommend SarekOfVulcan takes a little bit of time to re-acquaint himself with some of the material on WP:ARL before involving himself further in controversial issues or behavioural reviews. Knepflerle (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's an utterly bizarre comment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the recent short conversation I've had with SarekOfVulcan it's clear that he understands exactly what I mean with these points (even if he does not agree with all of them), and that's the point of the review. Knepflerle (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nominating for deletion a sourced article on a Chilean (nobleman?) Francisco Hernández Ortiz-Pizarro, dead for about 400 years, for lack of Google footprint raises eyebrows. Even more so when it's done only half an hour after article creation. AfD'ing and at the same time blocking the article creator for an unrelated 3RR offense is fairly intrusive and could probably drive away all but the most hard-core addicted Wikipedia editors (the 3RR incident was in another article but same subject field, the editor seems to have specialist knowledge on this topic). It is to your credit that you withdrew your nom quickly, but I think you overstepped here. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've no memory of running into SarekOfVulcan prior to reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (3rd nomination), which SOV closed 2 November 2008 with "keep per multiple references in RS." The problem there is that there were not many sources offered, and that while some of them are reputable sources, they're not relevant ones which "should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made" (emphasis in original) and that a "new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing" (emphasis mine) WP:NEOLOGISM old revision of WP:NEO at time of AfD closing. A reliable source is both reputable and relevant, and it doesn't appear there were in fact any RS in this case. Such confusion about RS is not good to have in an admin; hopefully, given that that AfD is from a year ago, that confusion no longer exists. Шизомби (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

All the cool kids are doing it, so I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon. Basically, I've received some flak in the past; mostly in private communiques, mostly centered on my unprofessional demeanor and lack of moral fiber. I exaggerate, but I welcome input. Cheers, and be brutally honest, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

...

• I agree with the above concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the concerns that may or may not be above. Is "..." a concern, because ellipses are very, very scary. Like that bunny from Monty Python. One minute you have legs, then bam an ellipse goes for your legs and chews them off (in a cute way). Seriously though, no problems here.   Nezzadar ☎   18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Metallica suck. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

Some folks think my judgment has been a bit off lately—particularly with regard to AfD closures. Thoughts/suggestions welcome. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is this only in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex or do you have something else in mind too? Tim Song (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Partially, but a couple comments at the associated DRV indicated that a few other of my closures have been inaccurate. It probably isn't a big deal, but I'd just like a nudge back in the right direction if I am losing my touch. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hum. Going through the last week, I can't find anything problematic (in my opinion, obviously) aside from that one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Radevski (it was open for two weeks, not three, though I don't disagree with the close) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song) (I would add a suggestion for a merge discussion, as WP:NSONGS does say that "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"). Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why would you close such an AFD? :P --Rschen7754 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

I've been an admin for 4 years now. Thought I would get some feedback. Rschen7754 07:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Dave (talk)

My only complaint is that sometimes you rush to judgement and have a "my way or the highway approach". (yes I know there's a pun in there as most of your work is on California road articles) For example, while I agree with the PROD you initiated of Jack Schrade Interchange, this was closed only 2 days (during a major holiday nonetheless) of when the PROD was advertised on the appropriate forum. This was not enough time to generate discussion. The redirect of the article also seemed to ignore this point raised in this edit summary [10]. While I may disagree with the outcome of that AfD, Phil's reasoning is in line with wikipedia guidelines. I have seen many other instances similar to this.

With that said, I do admire your work in general. You do have chosen to stick to trying to improve California road articles, despite the immense challenges. You also do a lot of tough admin actions that others shy away form. For those not familiar, keeping a quality article about a road article in California is an unbelievable tough chore. For reasons I don't fully understand, the California Highways Wikiproject, WP:CASH, seems to attract editors with various issues. It's hard to describe to somebody who doesn't work on road articles and hasn't experienced it first hand; however, believe me when I say that Abortion and George W. Bush will be Featured Articles long before U.S. Route 101 in California will be. A lesser person would have given up by now. Dave (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)