User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:15, 19 March 2014

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

TBAN appeal

Hi Sandstein,

I would like to return to editing and appeal this TBAN as suggested in your notice. I realize that my main problem was not really editing in the area of pseudoscience, but WP:COI concern. Therefore, I promise the following to avoid such problems in the future:

I will never revert edits by other users in the situation when there is a content dispute, and others can reasonably believe that I have a conflict of interest. That was indeed my problem while editing article Herbert E. Ives. Please note that it was my first lapse of judgement of this nature, although I edited a lot of scientific subjects before, where a similar situation could arise.
If a dispute/discussion arises, I will ask and check myself for alternative RS, other than this book (Nonpostulated relativity). This is something I actually tried to do [1].
I will avoid prolonged non-productive discussions related to this book or any other subjects where I might be personally involved by leaving editing and discussion to others.

Please note that I had only one previous discussion related to this book many years ago. Nothing in my editing during all these years, beyond this single episode, indicates that I tried to promote this book or this author.

I think an additional problem on my part was my poor judgement. Therefore,

I will avoid non-productive discussions in general by leaving pages to others (unfortunately, I do not have time for prolonged dispute resolution), and
I will not bring to WP:AE any matters where I am currently (or recently) involved without consulting with an uninvolved administrator.

If I tried a formal WP:AE appeal, I would also emphasize the point that I simply never edited in the area of pseudoscience. There was a user who commented about me on your and other pages [2]. I have no idea who they are, but I agree with their comments and must assume good faith on their part.

So, what do you think? I can elaborate some points if you wish.

Sorry for the trouble, My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal is certainly worth examining. You are banned from everything related to the writer and scientist Lev Lomize. Could you please describe which edits, if any, you intend to make relating to Lev Lomize if this ban is lifted? Sandstein 09:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have absolutely no intention editing anything directly about him. For example, I am not going to create a BLP page about him or any pages about this book or other works. And I never tried this before. In the event such pages are created by someone else, I would refrain from editing them directly and might only make comments on their talk pages (in line with WP:COI). However, I will probably edit subjects of mainstream Physics, including special relativity, and I would like to keep open the possibility to use this book (Russian edition) as a source/reference. This is because I am familiar with the book. This books covers not only special relativity, but classical electrodynamics - at the level of introductory textbook. This assumes the book will be treated exactly as any other source, in compliance with WP:COI. If, for example, it will be decided on RS or other appropriate noticeboards that the book is not a reliable source for making certain claims, I will comply per WP:Consensus. And I never tried to insert references to this book in multiple articles, as would be done by anyone who is actually trying to promote a book. Now, speaking about Herbert Ives article, I still believe this book would be an appropriate secondary source to justify certain claims, which are currently made specifically in this page, however, I will not revert edits by other contributors related to the book (as stated above), and I would rather not edit this page at all for the near future.My very best wishes (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that it would be a good idea to use, in general physics articles, a translation of an older Russian/Soviet physics textbook, especially by somebody who seems to be associated in the English-speaking world with non-mainstream ideas and has no publication history, rather than, say an up-to-date textbook by an established university press? Sandstein 15:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a matter of convenience for me. Yes, I prefer using Russian books because I studied Physics using these books, just as I am using Russian sources in other subject areas. I believe having such diversity is beneficial for the project. At the same time, yes, I agree not use this book in general physics articles if there are other sources available to support a claim, per #2 above. Yes, such alternative sources will be usually or always available if needed. However, speaking about mainstream Russian physics books/textbooks in general (and I believe this is one of them), they frequently provide a different approach to teaching and interpreting Physics than commonly used US textbooks, for example. Therefore, their use in general would be actually a good idea to comply with WP:NPOV and improve articles. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, talking even more informally, let me tell the following:

Having a TBAN makes me extremely uncomfortable and significantly less willing to participate in the project, as you can see from my self-imposed two-month block.
I am taking this very seriously and will make every effort not to be in this situation ever again, as you can see from my self-imposed two-month block.
Looking at my editing history during all these years, there is no any indication that I am a COI-driven editor bent on promoting this book or this author. One could make a much stronger case that I promoted Black Book of Communism, Mitrokhin Archive, or Pfam around here.
I never edited in the area of pseudoscience at all. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Although I still have misgivings about you wanting to cite this particular book so much that you abstain from editing Wikipedia altogether while you are banned from doing so, I recognize that the determination of what an appropriate reliable source is is too close to a content issue for me to be comfortable to maintain the ban on that basis alone. The ban is lifted, in the expectation that the conflict that led up to it will not reoccur. Sandstein 11:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My frustration was mostly caused by my opinion that TBAN was unjust. In addition, I also had (and still have) some work to do, and this break helped me to control my addiction to wikiediting. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If I really wanted to cite this book a lot, I would do it long time ago. This book can be used per rules in multiple articles, just as any other RS. I did not do it for two reasons: (a) the potential COI concern, and (b) I avoided editing in the area of general Physics because of the atrocious editing atmosphere out there. Yes, I think only ARBPIA is worse. This is happening because certain editors of Physics want everything be described exactly as in their favorite textbook, which goes against WP:NPOV, but trying to convince them is very difficult. What I really worry about is this taking place very recently, because I know what it means. Best, My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is improper use of article talk page, however I would rather avoid editing or discussing this page. This is also perfect example why I edited very little in the area of general Physics. I edited a lot in Eastern Europe area, but I can not remember a single case when a non-administrator placed a TBAN notice about their content "opponent" on article talk page and restored this notice even when TBAN was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles

Can you undelete Subang Air Traffic Control Centre and Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center? They're both regional control centers and are not unnotable organizations at all. Additionally, they have few sources, because they operate in countries where English is not the primary language, but they are listed on this page, indicating that it is a regional control center. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they may well be notable, I wouldn't know. I deleted them because the notability wasn't apparent from the article. And by notability I mean, of course, coverage in reliable sources that can serve as the basis of article content (see WP:GNG). The website you link to just mentions the center's existence. Do you have other references to sources that could establish notability? Sandstein 13:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your insinuation at ANI

I'm extremely unhappy at your insinuation that I had acted in a manner as to stifle a valid expression of opinion. If you were to apply your standards consistently – which I sincerely believe that you do try your best – would you not have issued a warning for this? Instead of insinuating that my collapsing of that thread was somehow trying to hide legitimate criticism, would you not acknowledge that the above was a perfect example of baiting and trolling that is not conducive to a health discussion? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context. In the context of WP:ARBATC, the Committee explicitly forbade personalizing disputes. Were this a comment in a Manual of Style-related dispute, a warning about WP:AC/DS might therefore be appropriate. However, in the context of WP:ANI conduct disputes, this is certainly a trenchant expression of a point of view, but it does not rise to the level of a WP:NPA violation (in my perhaps biased view, because I agree with the sentiments expressed there). There are other comments in that ANI thread that are, in my view, rather more problematic, such as those alleging bad faith, bullying, etc. on my part.

I am of the view that you acted inappropriately by hiding a comment that is critical of your position. You should have let an uninvolved administrator do that, if it was needed. Sandstein 11:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"a trenchant expression of a point of view" You humour me. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your incorrect statements on my talk page: Urartu TH

As was decided by Penwhale on the AE page [3], "Urartu TH (talk · contribs) blocked by Sandstein for WP:NPA/WP:AGF issues separate from original request which was not actionable." But on my talk page you had written, "To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violations of the principles outlined in WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS in your statement to WP:AE...". This is clearly a contradiction and erroneous.

I would like to know if this was simply a mistake on your part or whether your decision was overruled. In any case, let's reiterate that I did not violate the Arbitration Decision regarding the Khojaly tragedy article at "Talk:Khojaly Massacre#Number_of_civilians_affected".

I also would encourage you to take a closer look at the arbitration enforcement talk, which is deemed not actionable, [4] to see that I did in fact give evidence for Grandmaster's behavior: "One need only read the DRN or the Khojaly tragedy talk page for examples" and "The second edit, March 15, 2014, was not even discussed in the DRN and I am truly perplexed as to how Grandmaster could attempt to "enforce" a DRN's conclusion on a topic that was not at all discussed."

If such evidence was not specific enough as to pinpoint my concerns, then that should have been noted instead of simply claiming that I have no evidence. I would appreciate it if you changed your statement on my talk page to reflect the actual decision of the AE action.--Urartu TH (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this confused you, but my block was an enforcement of the arbitration decision in the sense that the decision authorized administrators to block editors who violate Wikipedia conduct rules, as you did in your response to the enforcement request. I don't think that anything needs to be changed. Sandstein 16:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This logic is convoluted and general nonsense. The arbitration decision involved a disagreement about content in the Khojaly tragedy article. It did not involve a statement I had not yet made, during the non-actionable enforcement request. Therefore I did not violate the arbitration decision. The wording on my talk page clearly states that I violated the arbitration decision where you said the following: "To enforce an arbitration decision". You were not enforcing anything via the block, but rather making a unilateral decision to disregard evidence I pointed to and block me for accusatory language. I hope that makes my concern clearer.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration decision I was enforcing is the one found at WP:ARBAA2, which provides that: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." Discretionary sanctions, in turn, authorize blocks for general misconduct related to the topic area. You were previously warned about this on your talk page. Sandstein 21:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you whether or not my concerns regarding Grandmaster's statements towards me rise to the level of sanctions for NPA, but this does not violate the arbiration decision and I'd simply like you to remove those few words from my talk page.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please have a look at this edit: [5] Is it Ok to label edits by other editors as vandalism, especially considering that very recently Urartu TH was blocked for the violation of WP:NPA? Grandmaster 16:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anyone was a vandal. Certainly not. But the edit in question was uncalled for and without good faith. Also, please mind WP:HOUND.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution, if you're amenable

I note that NE Ent has put back their version of the ARBATC log, with their own discretionary sanctions notices logged there (except with regard to Neotarf), instead of your old ones, the ones that had the accusations embedded in them. That simple change (unless reverted) actually moots the longstanding dispute I've had with you, from my point of view, and thus also obviates my need to file an ArbCom case or make any further attempts at resolving this. This seems to me that it should work for you, since it implies no error or wrongdoing on your part, it simply replaces notices that had old, objectionable-to-some wording with ones that don't, and obviates your concern that simple removal of your notice logging would somehow change enforceability of sanctions in any way – the same parties are still notified of the same sanctions. It works for me, coupled with the changes to the wording at that page more generally ("warning" -> "notice", and the new intro note at that section that being listed there is not proof of wrongdoing); my issue has always been the defamatory false accusation, not the fact of being notified of something. It doesn't resolve the problem that you've been issuing some ARBATC notices without logging them, but that doesn't directly concern me very much. It doesn't address what you know that I and some others see as an INVOLVED and pointlessly punitive topic ban against me last April, but as I was too busy offline to get around to appealing it before it expired, I don't see any point in continued protest about that. I haven't decided whether I'll return to regular content editing or stay resigned/retired; your actions against me, and the failure of ArbCom and the admin community more broadly to deal with the matter – for an entire year, no matter how many times and how clearly the matter was raised, how simple the solution was – have shaken my faith in this entire project, deeply. But I think this dispute at least can be resolved right now with a simple verbal agreement that NE Ent's version sticks and there isn't anything else to resolve. Deal?

PS: Sorry about mistaking you for having reverted NE Ent's change, earlier; I was looking at the wrong diffs and saw that previously you'd reverted someone else's change that removed Neotarf's entry from the log entirely, like a month ago.

PPS: Neotarf (perhaps confused as to the intent or effect?) objected to NE Ent's change, and NE Ent thus reverted their Neotarf notice in the ARBATC log back to your version, which is surely worse from Neotarf's perspective; I would advise partial-reverting back to NE Ent's version of the Neotarf notice, or this may well turn into an RFARB psychodrama after all, since Neotarf remains unsatisfied that the issue has been resolved. Neotarf may not be entirely happy with NE Ent's version, but there would be no false accusation latent in it, thus (I think) no further grounds for a dispute. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation NE Ent 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 I note that NE Ent has put back their version of the ARBATC log, with their own discretionary sanctions notices logged there (except with regard to Neotarf), instead of your old ones, the ones that had the accusations embedded in them.  That simple change (unless reverted) actually moots the longstanding dispute I've had with you, from my point of view, and thus also obviates my need to file an ArbCom case or make any further attempts at resolving this.  This seems to me that it {{em|should}} work for you, since it implies no error or wrongdoing on your part, it simply replaces notices that had old, objectionable-to-some wording with ones that don't, and obviates your concern that simple removal of your notice logging would somehow change enforceability of sanctions in any way &ndash; the same parties are still notified of the same sanctions.  It works for me, coupled with the changes to the wording at that page more generally ("warning" -> "notice", and the new intro note at that section that being listed there is not proof of wrongdoing); my issue has always been the defamatory false accusation, not the fact of being notified of something.  It doesn't resolve the problem that you've been issuing some ARBATC notices without logging them, but that doesn't directly concern me very much.  It doesn't address what you know that I and some others see as an INVOLVED and pointlessly punitive topic ban against me last April, but as I was too busy offline to get around to appealing it before it expired, I don't see any point in continued protest about that.  I haven't decided whether I'll return to regular content editing or stay resigned/retired; your actions against me, and the failure of ArbCom and the admin community more broadly to deal with the matter &ndash; for an entire year, no matter how many times and how clearly the matter was raised, how simple the solution was &ndash; have shaken my faith in this entire project, deeply.  But I think this dispute at least can be resolved right now with a simple verbal agreement that NE Ent's version sticks and there isn't anything else to resolve.  Deal?<p>PS: Sorry about mistaking you for having reverted NE Ent's change, earlier; I was looking at the wrong diffs and saw that previously you'd reverted someone else's change that removed Neotarf's entry from the log entirely, like a month ago.</p><p>PPS: Neotarf (perhaps confused as to the intent or effect?) objected to NE Ent's change, and NE Ent thus reverted their Neotarf notice in the ARBATC log back to your version, which is surely worse from Neotarf's perspective; I would advise partial-reverting back to NE Ent's version of the Neotarf notice, or this may well turn into an RFARB psychodrama after all, since Neotarf remains unsatisfied that the issue has been resolved.  Neotarf may not be entirely happy with NE Ent's version, but there would be no false accusation latent in it, thus (I think) no further grounds for a dispute. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User talk:SMcCandlish|Talk⇒]] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|Contrib.]]</small></font>  20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)</p>
+== ARCA ==
+[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation]] <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)