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

Destruction of a valued long-time editor

Dear Sandstein, if I hadn't said enough about this, I'll reiterate my distress at the loss of Noetica, whom I hold you responsible for hounding out of en.WP. Noetica appears to have requested the deletion of his userpage, which was done today by Matt Bisantz. I just don't understand why you feel it's necessary to punish editors by imposing these discretionary sanctions on them for no clear reason.

It is belittling to be treated like a naughty child when you're an established and highly talented editor who has put a huge investment into the project. Without even talking about the technical injustice, I'm wondering whether you understand the psychological impact of your actions: it appears not. Do you feel it's just fine to jettison our best editors with ham-fisted knock-their-heads-together actions when editor retention is the most serious problem facing us? Anyone could have predicted that that would be the effect. And you've infuriated other editors who were caught on the sidelines just commenting at the AE. It would be understandable if they gave up their efforts as volunteers, too.

On-wiki comments and emails are telling me that there's significant discontent about what has happened. Perhaps you might consider righting the wrong by apologising and withdrawing this weird and unjust imposition of discretionary sanctions, which gives any admin extra guns to shoot down established editors at their whim. That would restore the respect I believe you deserve for your expertise in certain areas, and frankly, you'd come out looking good, establishing that admins actions can and should be subject to reflection and occasionally self-reversal.

As a personal comment, this turn of events is just the kind of thing that fuels sharp resentment of admins by non-admins. I feel a cudgel; this will not be easily forgotten or forgiven. Tony (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your frank and honest comments. However, I don't agree with them.

To begin with, a warning is not a sanction, because it imposes no restrictions. It simply reminds people to take particular care when editing in a sensitive area, which (in the ArbCom's judgment) includes WP:MOS. As one can see e.g. at WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications (concerning the Israel-Palestine topic alone), such warnings are routinely issued to dozens or hundreds of editors, including to such well-experienced editors as Off2riorob, AnonMoos and Baseball Bugs. I am therefore astonished to see that some of the four editors I warned in this case have become so angry about it. I've never experienced anything remotely similar from the many other editors I've given such warnings.

While I share your concern that we need to retain qualified contributors, an absolutely non-negotiable condition of participation is compliance with our community conduct rules. These apply to all alike, newbies and oldtimers, good and bad editors, administrators and other editors. Therefore I as much as possible try not to take an editor's experience, admin status or other characteristics into account when assessing the conduct of others. I am actively opposed to a certain social dynamic in Wikipedia that tends to give well-established editors (who are often, but not always admins) more leeway for disruptive conduct.

For these reasons, if somebody retires simply because they were warned that they need to comply with community conduct rules, I can't help but consider that this is probably because they were in fact violating these rules (or were counting on being able to do so in the future), and that such retirements are therefore likely a net benefit to the project in the long run. Additionally, the essay WP:DIVA describes my general attitude towards editors who retire, or threaten to, because they feel offended.

I don't see why these warnings should fuel particular resentment of admins by non-admins, either. It is in the nature of things that admins are the ones who issue such warnings. However, admins may be warned or sanctioned too, and I at least try to treat them exactly like all other editors in that regard.

I also disagree with your characterization of my warning as "hounding", which per WP:HOUNDING is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I've interacted with Noetica exactly once, in my recollection, and that was in issuing the warning. Therefore I find this comment of yours perplexing.  Sandstein  15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying things like this: I can't help but consider that this is probably because they were in fact violating these rules. I urge you to accept the quite real possibility that people don't like feeling like they're being punished, especially when they don't think they've done anything wrong. Can't you see that some might not like to participate in such an environment? That doesn't mean you have to agree that they haven't done anything wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly most people don't like feeling like they're being punished. But in this case, I'd have difficulty taking them seriously, because a warning isn't a punishment, just like traffic warning signs by the roadside are not a punishment.  Sandstein  21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

But the point is that they feel like it is a punishment, or at least an official determination that they have been naughty. See the commentary at the A/R/CL—even some of the arbitrators have said things like "the implication is that some form of misconduct has taken place". Read the text of the warning you left! Being told this, when you don't believe you have done anything wrong, is not conducive to making this a fun and rewarding place to spend your time. Can you see that this might be the case for some people? That leaving does not necessarily imply that they know they are guilty? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I fully understand that many people who are sanctioned or warned on Wikipedia believe that they have been treated unjustly, and there are some who are so frustrated about it that they leave. However, that's in no way a reason not to sanction or warn them if they do something that merits it. That's because my primary concern as an administrator are the majority of productive editors who do not misbehave in any way , and many of whom may disengage from the project as a result of encounters with the minority of editors who have trouble functioning well in a collaborative environment. What we can perhaps do better is to communicate to the editors who believe they've been treated unjustly that, like all human decisions, sanctions can be a result of good faith misunderstandings, errors or misconceptions on either or both parts, and that it's better to use the formal appeals procedures rather than storm off like a WP:DIVA.  Sandstein  18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

that's in no way a reason not to sanction—No of course not, I don't think anyone said it was. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

I've made a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Article_namespace regarding Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#North_Korea. The consensus seems pretty straightforward (!vote 5 supports to 2 opposes) other than the usual walls of text from the usual source. I've also informed User:EdJohnston and hopefully we can start making some progress on the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Brandmeister

Hi. While the report on Brandmeister was closed, I believe the information that I provided on violation of the parole by User:517design apparently went unnoticed: [1] Could you please advise if this information is actionable, or if what 517design did appearing out of nowhere and reverting without any discussion was not a violation of his parole? Thanks. Grandmaster 11:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

[2] may well be a violation of [3]. If you think that this is so (and I've not examined this in detail), then you can file a corresponding request at WP:AE.  Sandstein  12:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your two diffs appear to be identical. Do you mean that this: [4] could be a violation of this: [5] It clearly is, I'm just not sure whether filing another report could lead to sanctions against me in the view of the recent warning. In any case, the information has already been provided at AE, do you think I need to file another report? Grandmaster 12:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. No, making actionable reports is not a problem, and misconduct by each individual editor should be the subject of a separate AE request, to allow focused discussion.  Sandstein  12:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I filed an new report at AE. Grandmaster 12:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your, in my view, inappropriate speedy deletion of Romi Mankin (again)

Dear Sandstein, I have taken some time to think about your speedy deletion of my recreation of the Romi Makin page and can't help myself from feeling troubled about your approach here. My argument for recreation was specifically addressed on a note to you and on the talk page for the new article and specifically was addressing the main reason for the initial suggestion for deletion of the first article - his low notability due to a low h-index in GS. Others arguing for deletion also argued "GS cites are low". I argued in the notes to you and and the talk page that this no longer in my view true. I think you did not take this into account when deleting. Did you check the h-index in GS before deletion. I also found your threat not to "recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation" was rude and not appropriate for an administrator. I am also not clear about whether your suggestion of submitting a "userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV" is appropriate. I felt by my mentioning of the improved h-score to you and in the talk page of the recreated article I had overcome the objections, and showed that my new, improved work met Wikipedia article policies. I wrote down the reasons I thought the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. I am particulerly concerned that it seems to me that any attempt to remove it again should have been settled before the community, on AFD. Are you completey convinced you have behaved properly in this matter and what suggestions do you have for further action on my part? I am not sure why a restoration and another Afd would not be more appropiate according to our policy. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) A quick glance at the article(s) shows the speedy deletion to be appropriate. You really should not have recreated a live article, but should have kept it as a userspace draft until it had been reviewed. There's nothing in Sandstein's wording that was inappropriate: if you recreate it, it will be salted...pretty simple and to the point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/February#Romi_Mankin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romi Mankin

Dear BWilkins thank you for your response to the note I left for Sandstein. I am not clear how you think this note might help since I don't think it engaged with the issues raised only offered your support for the outcome. Also I am not clear which policy your argument that I should not have recreated the live article was based on. My feeling is userspace drafts is something some would like to encourage but has this been accpeted as policy now? Also I think your strengthening of the "threat" is not in policy. Sandstein suggested

"Please don't recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation. If you want to make sure, submit an userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV." (This dosn't seem the right use of WP:DRV)

you suggest

"if you recreate it, it will be salted". Is this whatever form the recreation takes no matter if the reason for deletion no longer apply and the article has been improved?

I am clearly unhappy with your response and the lack of response of either you or Sandstein to the issues I raised rather the outcome we have at the moment. My opinion is that I think this has not been handled well and the same outcome could have been achieved with far better feeling if other language or another approach had been used. Even if another AFD was deemed by Sandstein too much why not engage with the issues raised - suggest I look for more sources - ask for details of the new H-score and expalin how that still might not meet the appropriate WP:prof level - or that more than that might be needed. Heavy handed behaviour be administrators is I think a problem that could easily be avoided and typically involves what could easily be viewed as conentious deletions. And this to delete a short stub on an Estonian Physics Prof who has been awarded the medal of his nations national Physics Association and has a H-index with the range that often leads to keeps at Afds. Anyway I will not pursue this further for perhaps a year when I will look again at Romi Mankin and see if I can make a more substantial article. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Procedures relating to Discretionary Sanctions

Hi. I've compiled a list of links to documents and procedures that materially affect the D.S. system. Can you think of any procedures or other important rulings that are missing from that list? I suspect it will be necessary to amend several procedures in an omnibus motion, so I'd like to make sure we get it right at the first pass. Thanks, AGK [•] 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative to do this. I'll take the liberty to add relevant pages to your list.  Sandstein  08:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Falsification of history in Azerbaijan

Hello dear Sandstein, yesterday User:Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the Falsification of history in Azerbaijan article, without even nominating it for deletion. Here he claims that "The article was obviously a tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content, and, as WP:CSD describes, a page intentend solely to disparage its subject. It was also created by an account who is almost certainly a sockpuppet."

This is simple unacceptable. As long as I know, Wikipedia is a community and admins don't have the right to delete articles without even a little discussion. The article was mostly translated from the Russian Wikipedia and the article there [6] was created in 2008 and as you can see it still exists. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replied in the AN thread you opened.  Sandstein  18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

Hi there,

I was discussing this proposal with User:Jclemens and he suggested your name as someone who I should show this to before I propose it to the community. I would appreciate your feedback at the talk page. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not gonna be a dick here, but all I did was try to recover a deleted article, which in my opinion, could have been used as a material for a nice article. I'm not saying it was perfect. I admit, I made a statement that wasn't quite appropriate, but banning me for a month just for complaining doesn't sound fair. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not being a dick about it. But you were not "banned for complaining". Rather, you were topic-banned temporarily for pursuing real-world conflicts in Wikipedia, which is not the place for this – for instance, by trying to add quite pronouncedly non-neutral material, or by making statements about "Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists" or that "the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life". I understand that you have strong opinions about these issues. I might, too, if I had your background and experience. But you must set these opinions aside while you're here, or refrain from editing in this topic area. For example, I have quite pronounced opinions about various governments around the world, but I'm not airing these opinions on Wikipedia, because we are not a soapbox.  Sandstein  19:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)