User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Props888

props888 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Hi Sandstein. Sorry to bother you, but could you have a look at Props888 edits to Talk:Feminism and Talk:Homophobia. There's a lot of soapboxing[1][2][3] & flamebaiting[4] going on here. Would appreciate an outside set of eyes on this--Cailil ^talk 23:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
PS there maybe a Username issue here[5], see proposition_8--Cailil ^talk

It's also worth noting the politicized use of their userpage[6]--Cailil ^talk 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The username is not a problem in my view and the userpage has now been changed. But the soapboxing, I agree, is unhelpful. I'll leave the editor a message.  Sandstein  07:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

While I do agree that some of my earliest edits do contain some soapboxing they were all at least helpful and, in regards to the homophobia article, the editors I were responding to were making wild accusations while soapboxing and I was merely defending myself which you seem to call "flamebaiting", and I changed my userpage (which, honestly, wasn't half as bad as some other editors and remember I am a relatively new user), and you have called my concerns with the feminism article on the talk page under the title "Sources" soapboxing, which you, coincidentally, haven't cited as an example of my soapboxing while 2 other users have constructively addressed them even though they may not agree with me.Props888 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation for the AfD rationale

Sandstein: Although I disagree with the outcome, I appreciate the care you took with explaining your rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews ... obviously you put some time and thought into it. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Related to this I have to say, that I really like your definition of "consensus, understood as a strong majority of policy-based arguments". I've read WP:CONSENSUS many times over and if I go by that page, I still have no idea of what consensus is supposed to be (rather than that there should be a "process" (which can be "invisible"!) to get it, consensus (whatever it is) is "good to have", consensus (whatever it is) is how decisions are made, that consensus (whatever it is) "can change" and a whole lotta other meaningless filler). Maybe you should suggest adding your definition to that policy page, including in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That idea of consensus is actually rather specific to AFDs, see WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. It works because you have one person, the closing admin, who is enabled to authoritatively weigh arguments and decide what consensus is. That's not the case in most other consensus-based processes, where the ability to allocate weight to arguments based on their quality is much more limited, because nobody is specifically authorized to do that.  Sandstein  20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Gabriella Fox AFD

I ask you to reconsider your close of this AFD. As both Tarc and I pointed out, the Scmidt argument, which you emphasized in your closing rationale, was based on inaccurate representation of the essentially trivial sources he listed, a point that Schmidt refused to address . Other keep !votes were flimsy and/or contradicted applicable guidelines (eg. one supposedly significant role in a notable release cannot satisfy the "multiple appearances" criterion. Finally, the AFD was tainted by the participation of the IP sock of an-indef-blocked user, who has an often-expressed animus towards me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination). I'm sorry, but I can't follow your argument. You may or may not be right with your assessment of the sources, but the point is that you convinced fewer people than MichaelQSchmidt did. And the IP editor, User:82.41.20.82, is not currently blocked, so I have no basis on which to assume that they are a banned editor, even if based on their contributions they seem to have been in conflict with you. I don't think that I can find a consensus to delete in this discussion, even though I personally agree that our excessive coverage of porn stars is not a point of pride for Wikipedia.  Sandstein  19:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi,

Could you please comment on this edit in the light of preceding discussion.

Thanks in advance, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think is the problem?  Sandstein  19:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor is well aware of existing arguments (among them Hewsen's work for disregarding of which he has got a notification from you), and however claims that "All these claims have no basis, have no evidence". Furthermore he accuses other editors of "playing game" simply based on the fact that he doesn't "know which way Mr.Ashot clearly sees that in some maps Kosalar is shown as a part of Armenia". Meanwhile maps themselves are self-evident if one knows the very basics of Geography. He tries to waste others' time to push his agenda. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you are wrong, but this does sound like a content dispute (that is, a disagreement about how an article should read). Administrators cannot resolve such disputes. You should proceed as described at WP:DR.  Sandstein  20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I probably have not succeeded in conveying my thoughts well enough. Actually my request for comment was not about the content, but about the disregarding of/ill-faith attitude towards others' arguments by an editor. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there are WP:AGF problems, but not to such an extent that they warrant administrator action.  Sandstein  21:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,
Would like to bring this edit to your attention which was made after User:Verman1 had become aware of Wikipedia guidelines regarding preliminary discussion. The following is the opinion of User:MarshallBagramyan, which I share myself: "Even though one could say that the discussion on the Tsitsernvank is "ongoing", his edits on Gandzasar clearly constitute vandalism because they involve the removal of reliable sources, which plainly identify this monastery as Armenian, and highly contentious editing"[7]. Thanks, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, but a content disagreement, and should not be called vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. Content disagreements must be resolved via WP:DR.  Sandstein  21:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi

Thank you for taking action at Iaaasi's community ban thread. Could you please re-block him without talk page access, noting the community ban? His talk page access was previously revoked by another administrator, who reversed his action at my request so that Iaaasi have a fair chance of defending himself during ban discussion. Now that Iaaasi has been community-banned, his talk page access can be revoked again. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 20:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary unless they abuse their talk page.  Sandstein  20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Adam2 AfD

Hello. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam2 as no consensus, citing the lack of discussion concerning the nature of provided sources. I am of the opinion that I acceptably scrutinized the applicability of the provided sources to satisfying WP:N and the reliability of the provided sources per WP:RS. My interpretation of AfD is that it is based on the merits of the arguments, not the quantity. Can you further elaborate as to why the lack of discussion is an issue? Regards, Rilak (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the AfD again. I overlooked that Markdask made a "Delete" recommendation after first giving a "Keep" opinion, presumably changing his mind. This changes my assessment. I've re-closed the discussion as "delete".  Sandstein  06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reassessing the AfD. I think I should point out that Markdask has left a comment on his talk page in response to a message from me which implies he prefers the article kept. That said, as you point out, he did say delete later on in the discussion. I suppose if Markdask considers deletion to be an unacceptable outcome, he can request a deletion review. Once again, thank you. Regards, Rilak (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hanterspade

This editor breached 1RR on Suez Crisis prior to being indef blocked. Am I permitted to undo his 1RR violation now that he's been blocked as a sock? Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:EW allows "reverting actions performed by banned users" but not (merely) blocked ones. If you do not want to take the risk of being blocked yourself, you should not revert the edit.  Sandstein  11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a violation of 1RR. Why shouldn't any user be permitted to revert it? Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because violations of 1RR are not part of the list at Wikipedia:EW#3RR exemptions, which applies by analogy to all revert restrictions.  Sandstein  11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for the explanation, but I think that's far from an ideal state of affairs, because it basically just rewards the violator. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Sandstein, you were the only one, who came up with a specific difference to justify banning me. What I said could have been a poorly formatted statement, but nothing else. Ones I added a quote from The Wall Street Journal'sarticle to the article I wrote. It was there for quite some time, but then somebody complained it was a "racist" quote. Immediately I removed it from the article. English is not my first language, and sometimes I am sloppy in my comments, but to topic ban me over that single maybe sloppy, but not a racist comment that I explained in a few places would be extremely unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not supporting a sanction on the basis of a single comment (your explanation for which, I think, makes little sense), but on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented in the request in combination with your record of disruption in this topic area.  Sandstein  21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You came up with a single specific difference. Others did not come up with any. May I please ask you to come up with some more differences to justify "totality of the evidence" of my disruptions in this particular topic area. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)