The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sandstein

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Generally, no issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fine William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. I have seen nothing to make me question this admin's judgment. Chillum 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
10. Toughnest in an administrator is necessary. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. ~ mazca ^talk 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
14. Tough but fair is right, need more admins like this. --BozMo talk 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. I know Sandstein as a fellow reviewer of unblock requests primarily, and the drafter of the original version of WP:GAB to which I later added. I believe I have reviewed many of his blocks, and him mine. I have never, ever had even the slightest reason to doubt his judgement whichever call he makes, and he has always sustained mine. I find his grasp of policy firm and his tone in dealing with difficult editors totally and thoroughly professional. A good and coldbloodedly competent guy who has my back and yours. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes; the issue isn't harshness/leniency, but an alleged bias against particular editors – iridescent 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• (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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Also, insisting that a block stick unless the blocker 100% agrees to lift it is a type of mentality that isn't very helpful in the broader scheme of things. More discussion prior to blocking may make it easier to avoid the temptation of observing such a mentality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• [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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.