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

Hi

(I Revive an old discussion by copying from the archive). Eliko (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think my case should be closed - according to my comments ibid. Eliko (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to close; I've declined the request already. Sandstein 11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that, but I mean that {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} should be added to the whole discussion, which was opened on definitely wrongfull grounds. See my comments ibid., and understand what I mean. Eliko (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's normally done on that board. Just let it drop and please don't edit-war again. Sandstein 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this is "not normally done on that board". However, this is done - in abnormal cases - like my case! Please see Okkar's case: {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} were added to the discussion.
"Don't edit-war again"? It seems like you didn't read - even my first sentence ibid. ("I didn't make even one revert - during the 24 hours - of 16-17 March - to which User:Basket of Puppies refers!"). If you read my whole explanation ibid., you will understand that: not only didn't I edit-war at all, but also there were no grounds for opening the discussion from the very beginning, what makes it an abnormal case! Please see my comments ibid., and understand what I mean...
I'm looking forward to your reviewing my request. If you still think you can't comply with it, then please consider to change the result - from "declined" - into: "declined: No violation".

Eliko (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Polyspermy cited in the request were edit-warring. I do not think that it is necessary to make further edits to the request. Sandstein 14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it seems like didn't read my explanation there; If you did, you wouldn't have said that.

During 2011, I made 6 edits only (From 15 March to 17 March). Has any of them anything to do with edit war? Would like to point at any of them and clarify why you think it has anything to do with edit war?

The first edit is the only revert (of edits made by other users) I ever made on this article. Note that I reverted, only after I had discussed the issue on the article talk page, and after there had been no response to my comments, and after I had indicated this fact on the article talk page. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
The second edit does not constitute a revert to any previous version, but rather considers User:Basket of Puppies' comment (in their edit summary), by my adding some new clarification to the wrongfully removed chapter, as I clearly indicated in my edit edit summary. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
The third edit was self-reverted by myself three minutes later. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
The fourth edit self-reverts myself. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
The fifth edit does not constitute a revert to any previous version, but rather considers User:Basket of Puppies' comment (in their edit summary), by my improving the wrongfully removed chapter, as I clearly indicated in my edit edit summary. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
The sixth edit simply deletes a double title. Does this have anything to do with edit war?

Can you point at any of these edits and clarify why you think it has anything to do with edit war?

Eliko (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made three reverts:

A revert is any edit that undoes the action of another editor, in whole or in part. It does not matter, therefore, that your reverts may also have added new content each time or may not have reverted to an exact previous state. They are nonetheless reverts because they reverted the removal of a "Mythology" section, and such a chain of reverts is edit-warring. Sandstein 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, you claim that: my adding the chapter - less than four times - during a period of more than 40 hours, is an edit war, although I had discussed the issue on the article talk page - before I added the chapter, and although I considered the arguments of the other editor (raised in their edit summary) against the chapter - by my improving the chapter each time (rather than by reverting to a previous version).

Is this what you claim? According to your position, I have to conclude the following: if I think a chapter - that lasted for 3 years - has just been removed wrongfully, and I discuss the issue on the article talk page, and nobody responds, then I have to refrain from improving (in accordance with the other editor's comments on the edit summary) the wrongfully removed chapter, right? Note that once any user agreed to respond to me on the article talk page, I refrained from improving the wrongfully removed chapter, although I'm sure the new argument - raised recently on the article talk page by others - is wrong!

Eliko (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? Eliko (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your disagreement with my advice is noted. Sandstein 10:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My previous two questions (in bold letters), were not intended to express disagreement, but rather to receive an answer, which I haven't received yet. Eliko (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. You may not make repeated reverts of the edits of others, unless these edits are vandalism as defined as WP:VAND, or violate the policy about the biography of living persons. How long the text has been on the page, or whether you discuss anything, or whether the other editor does, or whether you think the text is an improvement, does not matter. I strongly recommend that you let the matter rest here and accept that this is how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:EW if you have any further questions. Sandstein 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's clear, but you didn't refer to my two questions, which didn't discuss the WP:EW, but rather discussed what you had claimed (and you had claimed that my three edits are "edit war"). Unfortunately, I can't get the answer from WP:EW - which does not discuss your original claim, but rather from you only.

Notice that I had asked two yes/no questions, which are very easy to answer - by one word (yes/no):

whether you think that: my adding the chapter - less than four times - during a period of more than 40 hours, is an edit war, although I had discussed the issue on the article talk page - before I added the chapter, and although nobody had responded on the article talk page, and although I considered the arguments of the other editor (raised in their edit summary) against the chapter - by my improving the chapter each time (rather than by reverting to a previous version).

whether you think that: If I think a chapter - that lasted for 3 years - has just been removed wrongfully, and I discuss the issue on the article talk page, and nobody responds, then I have to refrain from improving (in accordance with the other editor's comments on the edit summary) the wrongfully removed chapter.

Let's give a concrete example: User A removes a chapter, due to a problem he presents in his edit summary. Then User B discusses the issue on the article talk page, by showing how to easily fix that problem. Nobody responds, so User B improves the removed chapter - by fixing the original problem (as User B explained on the article talk page), and by adding the improved chapter to the article. Then User C reverts the chapter again, due to another problem he presents in his edit summary. Then User B discusses the issue on the article talk page, by showing how to easily fix that second problem. Again, nobody responds, so: does User B have to refrain from improving the removed chapter (by fixing the ~~original~~ second problem - as User B explained on the article talk page), and from adding the improved chapter to the article?

Hope you answer my two questions - whose answer I can't find at WP:EW, unfortunately. Eliko (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes. 2. Yes, if that "improvement" is also a revert and therefore part of an edit war. In this case, find talk page consensus before re-adding the section (even in improved form). Sandstein 19:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for 2: I'm sorry for the word "original" which was written by mistake. I struck it out (see above), and replaced it by the correct word: "second". So I'm not talking about a revert to a previous version, but rather about a real improvement (which you may still call a "revert" although I'm not sure about that).

So, in my concrete example, you suggest that User B should "find talk page consensus before re-adding the section (even in improved form)". Unfortunately, nobody responds to User B's improvements suggested on the article talk page...

Note also that User B explains on the article talk page that there is no consensus for removing the article (because 3 users support the chapter - as User B proves on the article talk page), but again: nobody responds to User B's comments on the article talk page...

So, what should User B do? Should User B let the article stay without the improved chapter - just because nobody responds to User B's comments on the article talk page?

Note that I'm asking for learning only, not for anything else.

Eliko (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not talk in terms of "improved" when discussing edit-warring. Edit-warring is forbidden irrespective of who is "right" or whose edits are "better". In other words, even if you improve an article, you will be blocked for it if you try to edit-war your improvements in. If the editor with whom you disagree does not react to talk page messages, talk to them on their talk page. If that does not work, try to get the input of others, e.g. via WP:3O. But under no circumstances should you just continue reverting. A revert is also a revert even if you add new text. Sandstein 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "improved" I didn't intend to hint that User B is "right" nor that his edits are "better" than the other users' edits, but rather I intended to hint that the new version suggested by User B is better than his own previous version that was reverted by other users. Additionally, when talking about "improving" the chapter, I'm not talking about "adding new text" to the original version of the chapter, but rather about changing the very content of the old version of the chapter, in order for the new version to comply with the requirement presented by the other users in their edit summary.

What should User B do - if he had already talked to them on their talk page - but received no response, and User B had already asked for a third opinion - but nobody responded, and User B had already suggested a Mediation Cabal - and again nobody agreed to respond? Would that be enough - in order to try the ArbCom? Wouldn't that be rediculous? to try the ArbCom - just because nobody responds? User B can't accuse anybody of anything, can he? Can you see the bug here?

Note that I'm asking for learning only, not for anything else.

Eliko (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely unlikely that nobody responds to a 3O request. The ArbCom would not help, as they don't resolve content disputes. Please see WP:DR for further information. Sandstein 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ae appeal

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I trust you will take appropriate care with your edits. Sandstein 17:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But given the controversial nature of (at least one of) topic area(s) I edit in, and the paranoia you now installed in me, I expect I'll be keeping the 3O and RfC folks quite busy in near future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better to keep them busy than the admins. (Of course, I say that as an admin...) Sandstein 06:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, can you take a look at this user's edits [1]. He has been performing mass moves of EE articles without discussion, requests for move (until recently where he launched mass RMs) or inputs from others. The trick appears to be to do so many of these moves and RMs that most editors can't pay attention nor do they have time to devote to each one individually, hence the changes become implemented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, mass moves are problematic, but starting discussions is the correct way to resolve such issues - unless consensus turns out to be that all or most such proposals are unfounded. If they resume mass moves, a warning will be needed. Sandstein 10:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dan's ban

Sandstein, I suspect you probably couldn't care less, but I think your ban of Dr Dan was appallingly harsh. This is a good editor, not a disobedient animal. There's no reason to think Dr Dan or Lokyz could have thought some scattered reverts would lead to such severe punishments. All they did was participate in an edit-war started by a nationalist from a neighbouring country. These individual punishments are not the solution to the naming war problem. Please bare in mind that these users bore a large part of EML co-ordinated wikibullying: occasional incivility less bad that the average AN/I contribution or some reverting doesn't give sufficient excuse for these bans. DIGWUREN didn't even involved Lithuanian editors. M.K. Lokyz and Dr Dan are also three of the main contributors to Lithuanian articles in English wiki. Castrating these users and making them more vulnerable and less powerful than any tendy IP is not a solution to this problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not interested in the history or the national and social dynamics of the various ideological wars on Wikipedia. I approach these issues on a case-by-case, editor-by-editor basis. I look only at whether a user disrupts Wikipedia by edit-warring or otherwise, and if yes, I take into into account any past history of misconduct in determining which level of sanction is appropriate - not to punish, but to prevent further problems. "Good editors" do not edit war, period, no matter the circumstances. Sandstein 22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in reality lots of good users edit-war. We're here to contribute to an encyclopedia. I have a lot of respect for how you handle yourself on Wikipedia and how you make so many decisions on so many cases so well, but I find the attitude some administrators have that caring about an article's content is somehow immature or contemptible to be far more contemptible than any edit-warring. It is far worse to contribute nonsense to an encyclopedia read by millions of people than it is to revert someone adding nonsense, no matter how many times you have to revert it. We have BRD, and that's all well and good, but if the 'opponent' just chooses not to respect it then reverting again is the only option other than 30. Not everyone is a nice polite Swiss gentlemen who can be expected to act reasonably. ;) In EE matters 30 is almost always a farcical battle between groups of alligned users pretending to be uninvolved, hoping to suck some true neutral in as excuse to seek punishment or perform another revert. 3O would be necessary so often, with no value, that there is in practice no choice but to revert. The contributors are trapped. But let's put this aside. You have a good administrative head. Look at it from their point of view. How were they to know such level of punishment was to be expected? If you were to hear that in Switzerland some guys were given 15 years and banned from employment for swearing at each other, you would object, right? Yeah, we think swearing is wrong, and they knew they shouldn't do it, but they're entitled to have some ability to predict what the state will do to them for it, no? The punishments you have given to Dr Dan and Lokyz are extremely severe. Why, because of some DIGWUREN post-case scope-creep, should a small number of normally good editors be singled out for punishment for behaviour quite common and for the most part within BRD? I'm not disagreeing with you that reverting over names like this is something we should oppose; but I don't understand why this solution is supposed to be a reasonable one, nor how you think it will work. I agree punishments of such severity might be necessary in future, but the community needs to hone its attitude to these disputes first (and it is in the process of doing so as far as I can see). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All they did was participate in an edit-war started by a nationalist from a neighboring country" - Since I think I was mentioned here...can Deacon of Pndapetzim clarify who is he referring to by saying "the nationalist" and why he claims that the "nationalist from the neighboring country" started the edit war? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody, please do not continue disputes here.

I do not engage in punishment. Sanctions are intended to prevent recurring problems. Edit-warring is a problem. The editors at issue knew that. They were also warned that they might be sanctioned if they engage in problematic conduct, and have previously been sanctioned for such misconduct. Their sanctions are therefore no surprise to them, as is the fact that their current sanctions are more severe than their previous ones: It is common practice that sanctions escalate in severity if it is apparent that milder previous sanctions were not sufficiently preventative.

I have not examined and do not care about whether the content they reverted was correct or guideline-compliant, as this is of no importance when it comes to edit-warring. But if a user engages in edit wars to make articles reflect the same nationalist point of view across multiple articles, they are also not editing from a neutral point of view, which is a separate problem, and also requires action to prevent its recurrence. The topic bans were therefore an appropriate action to prevent continued edit-warring and nationalist tendentious editing on both sides. Sandstein 23:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, if you are saying the behaviour of these editors was inappropriate, you have to tell them what else they can reasonably do or show that you understand the options they face. Simple ideological assertions about edit-warring are not a substitute for consideration. The actions of these editors, if they constituted 'misconduct', were borderline. We're talking 3-month editing bans + other restrictions you've issued using a case that had nothing to do with them for reacting to edits made by editors with long histories of disruption. Both users had got into trouble for unrelated offences in the past, but not for anything terribly unusual in the area. Please look over the matter again after a day or so and consider whether or not you think you were too severe. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, neither Dr. Dan nor Lokyz has ever initiated a third opinion request or another form of a dispute resolution process in these multiple conflicts. The only times that they have participated in such procedures in the past, generally unwillingly and combatitively, was when these had been initiated by others (usually at their wits' end of how to deal with such situations). This is something that has been going on for something like 5+ years.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CC

Do you understand what you might have done incorrectly with the AE closed?[2]Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. What do you think is the problem? Sandstein 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selphyl

There's been much confusion about Selphyl.

Even Aesthetic Factors does not use the name Vampire Faceflit (TM) to refer to their product. It's confusing to the media and reported many different ways, but Selphyl is a way of isolating platelets and then activating them to release growth factors.

If you pull up their old web site (using Alexa or any other too), they discussed filling the nasolabial folds and filling scars.

i was the first to use the name Vampire Facelift and trademarked it--this is a specific WAY of using PRFM from any source along with Juvederm to give a very striking overall lift to the face. The media incorrectly assumed that Selphyl meant Vampire Facelift--they do not and I see no reason why an encyclopedia of facts should propigate a misconception.

It's all very easily verified by looking at Vampire Facelift on at uspto.gov You can see that Aesthetic factors trademarked vampire facelift technologies AFTER I trademarked Vampire Facelift (in effort to retain an toe-hold on the name).

I'm recognized as owning the name in the New York Times article--but the writer erroneously said that I "liked it so much that I trademarked it." Nope--I thought it up, then I liked it so much I trademarked it, and lots of other people liked it so much that they continue to try to claim it.

If the words vampire facelift are used, then they should be used in the appropriate way and credit given and not used in such a way to propagate the error of less than accurate reporting. Thank you very much.

Charles