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

Thanks

I was hoping someone would do this before long. I don't think FT2 is still an arbitrator, though. Nathan^T 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premature closure of AE request?

Hi Sandstein,

re the request concerning Jayjg: Though I agree that a few editors crossed the line and contributed little else than unhelpful ad hominems, I don't think it benefitted the discussion to close it after just five hours — there were many unanswered questions and far from a consensus to close it (with for instance uninvolved admin Gatoclass saying "I think [Jayjg's] edits are clearly within the area of the conflict").

Some of the questions that could have been answered:

1. What exactly is the scope of Jayjg's topic ban? If the question of a particular newspaper's pro-Israel/anti-Arab bias is not Arab-Israeli conflict-related, what is?

2. Since Jayjg's edits apparently weren't considered violations by a few editors at the time you closed the discussion, is it now OK for him and other similarly topic-banned editors to discuss (and edit) the same topics, namely Ahmadinejad, anti-Semitism, pro-Israel bias in media, the Qu'ran and different modern interpretations of what it says about Jews?

3. How do other topic-banned editors determine which topics are outside the scope of the ban? Can they safely assume that anything Jayjg edits in the future will be considered non-actionable, or will it have to be determined through repeated AE requests, like this time?

4. Was it correct to warn User:Nickhh for discussing inclusion of citations that accuse a particular newspaper of anti-Israel bias? If so, why did Jayjg get off scot-free for removing citations that accuse another newspaper of pro-Israel bias? Anything that gives rise to suspicions that WP admins employ double standards is detrimental to the project.

MeteorMaker (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to ask about this also, particularly the last point considering that at least from my review, the issues with Nickhh's edit and the fourth listed by MeteorMaker are identical. Regarding Nathan's point above as to FT2, I think it must also be noted that Coren is then the only arbitrator to comment, which in fact leaves no arbitrators who participated in the decision (Coren did not vote, and his pre-arbitration criticism of MeteorMaker was in fact repeatedly cited in the case). With respect to FT2, it seems that he also explicitly misconstrued the language of the remedy, or at least did not address suggestions that he had done so. Considering the implications of these evaluations, and that this arises as Jayjg has just recently returned to significant editing, I would think that additional arbitrators' views on this should be sought to make sure the scope is well understood. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have been justified to allow the discussion to continue for at least 24-hours, because some arbitrators with potential input may have been in their sleep cycles. That being said, if no one else has done so already, I wanted to thank you for getting involved as an administrator on the ArbCom enforcement board, as it may be one of the most difficult areas in the project to administer and adjudicate. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I guess any other arbitrators with input could just reopen the discussion since that is their perogative. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, Mackan79 and Cla68, thank you for your input. If you believe that the topic ban of Jayjg needs clarification in the areas you mention, the place to obtain that clarification would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for clarification, not WP:AE. The clarification you seek can only be provided by arbitrators, which do not usually contribute to AE. AE is normally the place where uninvolved admins determine whether specific actions violate a specific remedy. In this case, it is safe to say that there was practically no chance that further discussion would have provided administrator consensus that the edits at issue violated the topic ban, which is why it could be closed per WP:SNOW. The proper forum for more general clarification, as I said, would be Requests for clarification. The matter involving Nickhh did not involve edits by Jayjg and is thus not relevant to the only question presented in the AE request, which is whether or not Jayjg violated his topic ban. Sandstein 05:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful response, Sandstein, and indeed that may be largely correct. I am nevertheless concerned that the premature closing prevented the conventional wisdom in this situation from solidifying, which is that editors under a topic ban should not push the boundries at all. In Nick's case a specific remedy did not result either, but the conventional wisdom was highlighted by a number of completely uninvolved editors (certainly Jayjg was not involved in that discussion, but the case did involve the identical remedy to here, which affects multiple editors, and accordingly for which a consistent application should presumably be sought). Here, a number of substantial misunderstandings continued to prevail at the time of the close. FT2's statement that the ban only applied to articles within the area of conflict was one, and the idea that two arbitrators had commented in their roles as arbitrators was another. You noted that several of the comments had become unhelpful, but I think this can't be a reason to prematurely close the discussion. GatoClass clearly saw a violation, and on AN/I Gwen Gale suggested the same. This leaves Coren, Nathan and you who did not, although you were the first and only to address MeteorMaker's fourth listed edit, in your close, from an extended discussion about whether the Washington Times' reputation for being pro-Israel bears mention in Unification Church antisemitism controversy. Substantively speaking: if the question is where the topics of antisemitism and the Arab-Israeli conflict intersect, it must be exactly the discussion of where "supporting" or "opposing" Israel (in the Arab-Israeli conflict, of course) and antisemitism are relevant to each other. This is exactly where editors like Jayjg, G-Dett, MeteorMaker and the rest of us have been in disagreement (disagreements which of course always focus on policy, and yet where the sides are frustratingly predictable).

It may not be a big deal; no one knows how these things will develop. If the suggestion was that editors may make edits that fall within the area of the topic ban so long as their edits relate to a tangential topic, however, then I think this will lead to more disputes. In future discussions the understandings with Jayjg and with Nickhh will have to be reconciled. Knowing Wikipedia, of course there's the risk that such discussions will focus more on who has been "warned" than on what was decided, something which surely we don't want? I'll likely settle for raising these points with you, as I'm not up for making a request to ArbCom (in fact, I don't see that a clarification as to the remedy is needed), even as I strongly believe that additional clarity is needed. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that AE is just not a general discussion forum, but an enforcement venue. If you feel we need a wider discussion about our approach to such sanctions, and about the issue of boundaries, I recommend starting a discussion through WP:RFC, WP:VP or in a topically aproppriate noticeboard. With respect to edit four, FT2 also addressed it, and I agree with his assessment. My closing the thread was principally aimed at stopping the pointless mud-slinging on the part of involved editors, and does not preclude sua sponte enforcement of the remedy by another administrator who concludes that Jayjg did indeed violate the topic ban. I was not aware of any ANI discussion, to which there is no link in the AE request. Finally, as a procedural matter, the closure was probably also required because contrary to the instructions the filing user did not notify Jayjg and provide a diff to that effect. Sandstein 11:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll pass. I know too little about the Olympics and the politics surrounding it. Sandstein 05:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your response. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overly quick close to Jayjg discussion

You closed it in only 5 hours (16:32, 2 September 2009 to 21:26, 2 September 2009). Enough time for alerted partisans to get their friends in, not enough for people involved in the actual articles under discussion to get their say in. But hopefully he'll take the incident seriously. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AE is not a place for community discussion or for involved people to get their say in; it is for administrators to decide whether enforcement action is warranted. Please see my comments in the thread above. Sandstein 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert ban

Since an interaction ban has been imposed, does the revert ban with respect to Ryulong still apply to my own talk page? You seem to imply that it would be an exception if there were to be an interaction ban in this discussion. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the revert restriction remains in force. What I said then (correctly, as it turns out) was that you were about to receive an interaction ban in addition to the revert restriction. Sandstein 16:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because the exception is urgent now, and merely wanted then, I needed to ask. Thanks! Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not impose the exception since there's an interaction ban? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it yet? You are prohibited from interacting with Ryulong, which includes reverts. I will not answer any more of these inane requests. Sandstein 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Udjo Ngalagena

Hello Sandstein, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Udjo Ngalagena has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest prod deletion - a Google News archive search shows probable notability)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Who makes the decision on whether or not to Unban editors at ArbCom enforcement?

Hello Sandstein. I little while ago I made a request for someone to make a decision on my banning at Arbcom. Who am I supposed to contact to get this matter settled? You supported unbanning us but aren't we still banned? AncientObserver (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]