User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarification Request archived

The clarification request you have filed regarding the infobox arbitration case has been archived to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request_for_Clarification_.28July_2014.29 as it was declined. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, ignoring RfC

This is not the complaints department. Please refer to the appropriate fora for requesting admin action.  Sandstein  18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On the Blue Army (Poland) page. A statement that User:COD T 3 had been reverting out of the article became the basic of an RfC I launched. The conclusion of the RfC: [1] upon its closure was "There are no !votes on this 16 June RFC. However, because it is equivalent to 14 June RFC, it will be closed based on the above. The statement does properly reflect the source." Diff here: [2]. So, I re-added the statement, and was promptly reverted by User:COD T 3, a single-purpose account designed to remove negative info about this military unit. Article history is here:[3]. A discussion of the latest reverts is here: [4]. I am requesting that this user be banned from this topic. How long can one editor have veto power over an article's content?Faustian (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Two (and only two) outside contributors weighed-in on the second RfC on the BA talk page. Below are their definitive statements:
  • User: Truther2012 Are there other sources confirming both rapes and scrolls? It looks like the entire very controversial statement is based on a single source. Faustian, if you feel that this statement is that important for the integrity of the article, you should be able to provide more sources. Personally, I do not see why it is so important, as most armies commit similar crimes.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User: SMcCandlish I have to agree with Truther2012 that "most armies commit similar crimes", and thus insisting on levying a mass rape charge against the Blue Army is not really pertinent, as well as not actually feasible under WP:SYNTH with this particular sourcing. Please see also my how-to, WP:How to mine a source for a tutorial on how to get more information out of source material in a step-wise fashion. Regardless, you're going to need more of it than this very short, confusing partial quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC) That seems reasonable to me. It is clearer within this larger-context quotation that the "laundry list" is in fact describing the "Jew-bating and pogroms".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
How anyone comes to the conclusion that this discussion yielded consensus and a mandate to add the highly controversial statement to the BA article is beyond me! User Faustian is completely unreasonable in interpreting theses statements as consensus, and by adding the disputed text, user Faustian is creating situations which are disruptive to the BA article. --COD T 3 (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
If anyone thinks admin action is needed, it should be requested at WP:AE, Generally, though, admins can't act against questtionable content alterations, but only against problematic conduct.  Sandstein  01:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Would a longstanding pattern of persistently reverting info from a referenced source, ignoring an RfC, and misrepresenting what someone concludes (he pasted earlier comments rather than later ones, above) in order support his quest to exclude from an article info he doesn't like, count as problematic conduct? That single purpose account has basically done nothing but veto info that presents the Blue Army in an unfavorable light. It's been happening for years. Here's the same editor when he was posting as an IP: [5], for example. Here's the same editor falsifying what a source had written: [6]. It just goes on and on. He already has had discretionary sanctions for a while: [7]. Coming back to this, the most recent issue, what does someone have to do to get info from a reliable source into an article if one editor insists on reverting it?Faustian (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
And sure enough, when I added another fact, he reverted. His edit summary: "This article is not Encyclopedia Judaica, and will not be written from a Jewish perspective." He has indeed violated 3R: [8], [9], [10], [11].Faustian (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
NO. The statement was removed not because it comes form a "Jewish" source, but because Encyclopedia Judaica -an encyclopedia- as a tertiary source is not recommended when making controversial statements on a WP page. Other users advised Faustian to avoid the use of such a source in the past. The controversial claim, insinuates a mass charge of insubordination, yet it is clear that the problem was with individual elements of the BA not the entire 68,000 strong army. --COD T 3 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC on purging individuals and groups: closed

A brave closure,[12] and as per my word, I will go ahead and carry out the purge of all people and groups listed in Category:antisemitism and its subcategories in the coming days, as you've decided consensus is that such a purge is long overdue. I don't intend to violate the letter of WP:3RR, but if I am otherwise blocked you'd better have my back. -- Kendrick7talk 05:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: No, I did not say that there is consensus for any "purge". The discussion was about whether to remove instructions from the category page, not about whether to remove pages from the category, and it did not result in consensus. You should obtain explicit consensus for any potentially controversial mass edits in advance, or you risk being blocked for disruptive editing.  Sandstein  06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Um... what part of "This category... must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic" were you unclear about when you closed the purge debate and decided to keep that instruction? I've already purged Category:Antisemitism in Germany and Category:Antisemitism in Romania. I was the guy insisting this was a bad idea in the first place. Now I'm getting it both coming and going. I refuse to be crucified just because the administration can't make up their damn minds. Mixed messages herein abound -- Kendrick7talk 03:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion was about whether text should be removed from the category description, and it resulted in no consensus to do so. My administrator authority does not extend beyond establishing this. If you interpret the outcome of the discussion as anything else, you do so at your own risk. I or "the administration" have no power to decide anything else. I recommend that you work together with others from the discussion to set up a cross-category RfC, as many have suggested, to explore further options about what to do now.  Sandstein  06:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you actually could have decided to enforce the clear reading of WP:BURO, that our rules should reflect actual practice, not the other way around. Your dismissal of the rule as mere "text" suggests you hardly took into consideration the matter at hand. Our existing policies should actually override mere nose counting.
Furthermore, I am hardly inclined to open up the discussion so that this cancer can spread to who knows how many more categories beginning with the phrase "anti" given the ongoing indifference of the administration towards taking our most fundamental policies into account on this topic. I will rather magnanimously carry out the order. Sadly, I haven't run into anyone else who cares so far.... -- Kendrick7talk 01:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Polandball

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Polandball. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 185.49.15.25 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

AE question.

How recent the diffs should be to be considered an evidence at WP:AE?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends. Generally, to be actionable, an AE request should include at least one diff of very recent misconduct, about a week old. Older diffs can be included if necessary to show the persistence of disruptive conduct.  Sandstein  14:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

This discussion belongs at AE, not here.  Sandstein  04:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sandstein, Stephan Schulz said he'd be satisfied with a statement from me saying I wouldn't do that again. I added that. My explanation of things was to show what I was thinking at the time I made the edits. It didn't seem to me a problem, especially as the complaint was coming from MastCell who bears no good will towards me. However, uninvolved admins have weighed in and I agree I should not have edited there. So please, do not block me. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You commented repeatedly on a thread entitled "people associated with the Tea Party movement". If you lack the judgement to recognize obvious violations of your topic ban, what meaningful assurance can you give that they won't continue to happen? MastCell Talk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@MastCell, comments from you with attitude and tone like you are displaying here are the reason I deleted your comments as trolling. You are an administrator on WP and should know better than to take a hectoring tone and make disrespectful statements stating that I lack judgment. Go back and review what you've written on my talk page, which btw I'm sorry to have to tell you this, I didn't even read before I deleted it. That's how negative, not here to be helpful, an impression I have of you from the ArbCom pages. I saw your edit summary and immediately thought you were just there to harass me because I didn't agree with you on the article talk page.

Editors listen to those they respect because those people have also shown them respect. Do you know why I immediately respected and accepted what Sandstein had written? Because I've had positive experiences with him in the past. The same with the others. I don't know Stephen Schulz, but when he said there was a violation, I immediately believed him. He didn't use sarcasm or personal attacks. He was civil and identified my error straight away. Same with Ed Johnston when I realized he was reading Collect's comments, and not mine. He immediately came back, made a new comment, asked me if I'd mind if my comments on the article page got strike outs. Nobody has personalized anything. No insults, no sarcasm.

If you had said, "Hey, I think you've got a problem here. It seems you've violated your topic ban. . ." I would have engaged with your comment, we could have had a discussion, and I'd have gone back to the article talk page, done a strike out on my comments, apologized for my mistake, and left immediately. I don't lack judgment. It was not obvious to me that it was more than a BLP issue, as I've explained. But you apparently refuse to believe that. There's nothing I can do in that case. That is up to you, not me. So here is the answer to your question, but it's just for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the WP community: There's nothing I can say that will assure you that it won't happen again. Because I can't make you listen if you don't want to listen.

But I can assure Sandstein and Stephen Schulz, and Lord Roem and Ed Johnston and the WP community that it was an unintentional mistake and that it will never be a problem again. It's been a year since the ArbCom topic ban, and in all that time I've been editing, I've not had one single violation. This was a mistake, and I think they can see that. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

msg

{{You've got mail}} SW3 5DL (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a personal attack.  Sandstein  03:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Per Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. Sure read like an insult to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

reviewing DRV

The discussion has concluded.  Sandstein  15:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Mr Sandstein,

Note that I'd rather keep this conversation as a 1-to-1 between us, even though I don't mind making it public, I'd appreciate it if others didn't intervene and change the subject.

I'm going to refer obliquely to the individual concerned because of WP:BLP.

That a recent AFD that I was following was incorrectly closed as "keep" despite clear consensus to delete, which was consistent with the first AFD. The overwhelming delete votes referred to policy were countered by a small minority who were very vocal in wanting to keep it. This decision was so spectacularly bad it was then quickly DRVed. The DRV-ing resulted in a second round of bickering, and the second reviewing admin's opinion which was summarised as "I can't be bothered, or I don't have the courage, to come down on one side or the other" [13].

Thus so far the article has been kept, despite its absolute inconsistency with policy. For the rest of this paragraph however I'm going to have to pretend that the AFD was a close-run thing. The closing admin closed it as "keep", and his opinion must be respected. I also respect your opinion that it was a "close-run thing", but I do want to have a look at that with you:

1. The DRV process; what is it, and was it properly applied?

I think it is important in life generally that we learn from our mistakes. I'm sure you're a professional and you can agree with this. In doing so we can look at the processes involved that led to those mistakes and try to change them next time. Now, I'm not exactly sure of the processes involved here, and I'm not sure they are entirely written down. I can understand this; we don't want instruction creep and most admins can be relied upon for their common sense. But here's the process as I understand it:

  1. You look a the original AFDs and specifically at:
    1. the arguments made in relation to policy
    2. The number of people making those arguments.
    3. The experience of those making those arguments
  2. The closing admin should do all of the above and distil it into an opinion.

Remember this is (allegedly) a "close-run" example. In such an example, I feel that the summary "they're all interesting arguments" isn't an adequate summary due to lack of specifics.

I offer the analogy of a judge writing an opinion for a court case. He doesn't just pass judgement and say "that's all very interesting", but he goes into the legal arguments in detail, assesses them in light of the law and past precedents, and makes his decision based on those that. This takes more than 1 paragraph.

What we had from you in this case is such a lack of detail; just the one paragraph in your response. The response doesn't refer to any policies. It doesn't mention the number of !votes to keep or delete. The result is that we don't know whether you looked into this in sufficient detail to make a valid decision.

Could you therefore please provide a summary of what you did? (Did you read both AFDs in detail making a list of arguments on both sides)? If so, can we have a list of arguments, e.g. BLP1E, and specific explanations why that might or might not apply?

Could you also explain in your reasoning why the default in a "close-run thing" is "keep" when it's related to a BLP, and not "delete"?

The "I don't know" answer

Finally, where I work, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. If I have to make a decision and I'm not confident in that decision, it's my job to go and find someone who can help me make that decision better. If that's a colleague then we have collective responsibility if the wrong decision is made. If it's a big decision, then I ask my boss. In this case, did you consult others DRVers? Did they also come up with the same response?

Thanks in advance for your considered reply. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, are you referring to a DRV I closed? If so, could you link to it? What you write doesn't ring a bell with me.  Sandstein  02:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The one I'm specifically referring to is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 4, (1st AFD (consensus to delete), 2nd AFD (looking suspiciously similar to the first). Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I must apologize again, but I can't recall my reasoning in any more detail than what is described in the closing statement. You'll have to make do with that. To answer your other questions, as a DRV closer I generally look only at the arguments made in the DRV discussion and whether they constitute policy-informed consensus, and not in any great detail at the original AfD discussion(s) except as may be necessary to understand the DRV arguments. I didn't consult anybody else in this case.  Sandstein  16:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 Sandstein  - thanks for your considered reply. When you have the time, would you mind going back over both of the AFDs and the DRV again, noting the arguments used and the balance of these arguments as regards policy? (DRV; 1st AFD (consensus to delete), 2nd AFD) Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't see any particular reason to. I did that, to the extent it was necessary (as explained above) already when I closed the DRV.  Sandstein  17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. You might have considered the questions above to be questioning your authority as a very senior Wikipedian. No-one likes their authority being questioned. In such a case, the natural human reaction would be to dismiss the question without giving it due consideration. This might not be what you are doing, but I have no way of telling that this isn't what you are doing, and I'm therefore inclined to consider that you may have done it. All I can humbly do in this regard is appeal for your respect.
  1. You clearly however think that the existing process "to the extent that it is necessary" has adequately worked in this case. Perhaps you have faith in the process because "it has always worked before?". That it has always worked before might be the case, but I do not see that as resulting in 100% confidence - especially when people inevitably add subjectivity to the process.
  2. However, despite this, you cannot tell me what you did because you cannot remember. Yet you indicate that you may have only looked at the bickering in the DRV and not considered critical pieces of information such as the article itself and both first and second AFDs. My understanding was that DRV was supposed to be used where admins are accused of closing discussions wrongly - this certainly is what happened here - yet in such cases the process needs to look at the original discussion because this is where the problem is. When you review a decision you need to go back and
  3. Furthermore, I do not think that my request in this case is unreasonable (or "absurd"), since the article is a WP:BLP of a minor and special provisions apply to WP:BLPs, and especially to BLPs of minors. I can foresee such requests as being problematic if every DRV case had to be extensively analysed and reviewed. However, I'm only making a single request. Additionally, most reviews are very clear cut and do not reference complex policy issues such as WP:BLP and WP:MINOR. The complexity here is something that needs to be addressed.
Thus for these reasons I humbly suggest that "to the extent that it is necessary" has been in this particular case inadequate.
So, I'm going to ask you humbly to reconsider your brief response above: Can you please go back over what you did with an open mind (i.e. without prejudice (perhaps because you might not like me or consider your previous actions infallible)? Please look at everything in detail. List the arguments you find convincing and unconvincing. Ask for a second opinion if you're not sure. I realise that this might take you some time, and it be an inconvenience, but because this is a WP:BLP, I think it's important that we get this right.
Thank you once again for your considered input on this. Your detailed response, should it be forthcoming will be greatly appreciated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
In my view, as the DRV closer, I must only establish whether the DRV discussion results in consensus to overturn the AfD closure. In this case, I found that no such consensus exists, which you do not appear to contest. My own view about the article and whether or not it should be deleted in the light of the various arguments advanced at AfD does not matter. Therefore, I refrained then and refrain now from a closer examination of the article and AfD(s). I understand that you are frustrated that the deletion process did not result in your preferred outcome, but you must abide by that outcome nonetheless. If there are serious BLP concerns that the process failed to take into account, the person(s) affected remain free to seek deletion of the article via WP:OTRS. This concludes my discussion of this matter.  Sandstein  00:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mr Sandstein, thank you for concluding your discussion of this matter. I presume that this means that you will not be according to my polite request and explaining or reviewing your actions. No matter - I have given you plenty of opportunity to review and rectify your actions, but a wall of stubbornness isn't going to be helpful to anyone. I do however wish to write an executive summary of what happened, as I intend to use this summary going forward, and I don't think it's fair or respectful to you to use this without giving you the opportunity to comment, notwithstanding your stated intention not to comment further. Let's cover events the first and then look at the processes, and then look at the analysis of the processes.
  • Events:
    1. An article is written that is a BLP of a minor.
    2. An article is nominated for deletion and reaches an overwhelming consensus to delete in accordance with policies.
    3. An admin unilaterally closes the AFD (let's call this D2), as "keep", incorrectly.
    4. Because D2 was so appallingly bad decision, it is taken to WP:DRV immediately, where much of the previous AFD is rehashed.
    5. A second admin Sandstein unilaterally closed the DRV (let's call this D3). He concludes that this has reached "no consensus" and therefore defaults back to the D2.
  • Processes
    1. D2 - The decision was apparently taken unilaterally and without detailed in-depth analysis being provided [NB: I'm going to work on determining further details of D2 as I have tried to do with D3.]
    2. D3. The concluding admin reviewed the DRV, but only looked at the DRV and not other evidence, despite this being available. The review was superficial, i.e. there was no in-depth analysis of the policy issues concerned.
  • Polite request for clarification
    1. D2 [Further details to be determined]
    2. D3. Some clarification has been provided by the admin concerned regarding the processes (see above). A request for in-depth analysis of D2 has been rejected, apparently because no in-depth analysis was performed.
  • Barney's analysis of processes
    1. D2 The unilaterality of the decision opens the door for subjectivity in analysis.
    2. D3 The review appears to be inadequate for three main reasons:
      1. D2 (which was the decision which was wrong), was not examined directly. (Quite how you can have a review of a decision that doesn't look back at the original decision it is supposed to be reviewing is slightly beyond my comprehension)
      2. No in-depth analysis of the issues can be shown to have been undertaken.
      3. The decision was taken unilaterally. This is a key issue in D2, and it appears to be a key issue in D3. The reluctance to phone a friend when you are unsure seems highly indicative of overconfidence.
      4. The only response to questions about the processes are the assertions that the existing processes are adequate. Those assertions are unsupported by arguments, and in my analysis are unsupported by facts.
  • Thus we can reasonably conclude that (1) the processes here are inadequate and (2) these processes and this decision in particular need reviewing further.
I trust you will agree that the above summary is fair and accurate. I believe I have given you plenty of opportunity to review your decisions and the decision-making process, and an opportunity to back out, to which you have responded by digging in your heels in and ignoring.
Given the nature of this individual as a minor, and someone potentially with autism, the precautionary principle applies; we have to assume that he isn't capable of using ORTS either because he is too young and/or he cannot use email and/or he is receiving poor advice from those close to him who have in the past shown a willingness to use him for their own purposes. Saying it should go to ORTS is another example of not taking responsibility for your actions.
Hopefully those will be my last remarks to you on this matter, but as a matter of principle, I don't like to unilaterally close discussions if there are potential areas yet to discuss. So if you do have any further questions or comments, please let me know. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Barney, SandStein has very politely told you to stop beating the dead horse twice already. Take a hint. --erachima talk 15:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


  • This thread is absurd. "No Consensus" is not "I don't know"/"I Didn't Look Hard Enough"/the particularly obnoxious "I Lack Courage", it's "No Consensus." Barney, please stop badgering Sandstein. --erachima talk 17:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@erachima (talk · contribs) - I did politely ask that no-one else comment on this as I want the discussion to be between myself and Sandstein (talk · contribs). I'm not "badgering him", since the issue here is very important and I'm sure he'd say something if he thought I were. I would however greatly appreciate your input but only after you've looked in detail at the article, both AFDs and the DRV itself, which is what I am asking of Sandstein (talk · contribs). For additional information you can look at the talk page of the article itself. I humbly suggest however that you couldn't have done that in 6 minutes, and therefore you've not considered the arguments. If however, you do have the inclination to do that you are free to reply on my talk page, and I look forward to receiving your considered message, which as a rough guideline for you I'd expect to be in the region of 300-1000 words. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

As one of the most active administrators in that section, can you tell me why has my request for enforcement regarding Jaqeli been archived without being acted upon or even commented upon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Jaqeli Is the request still active? Almost all of the other archived cases seem to have ended in either action taken or no action taken before they were archived. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it seems that nobody took the time to process it. I'll put it back.  Sandstein  16:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you have some spite in you! I hope this was not just because I dared point out that someone made a mistake by archiving the case. Oh. it would have been much better for me to have left it buried! Is it usual to sanction an editor without giving that editor any opportunity to reply, indeed without giving that editor the slightest suggestion that he might be sanctioned. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all, in fact, thanks for pointing out that the request fell through the cracks. You were sanctioned because you were edit-warring. Because you yourself complained, among other things, about edit-warring by the other editor, I considered that you were familiar with the policy that prohibits it, which is why I did not wait for an additional statement by you. The instructions advise you that "If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." But if there is anything I overlooked, you are welcome to tell me about it now.  Sandstein  16:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me - exactly where have I said I was unaware about editing behaviour, or exactly where have I presented the excuse "I dont know about the existence of AA2, so why was I sanctioned under it" or similar such excuses? My unanswered point is that you have given me no opportunity to confront or change your belief that I was edit warring. I did not even know my enforcement request was still live - my question to you at the start proves that! Why, when restoring the case, did you not say something like "I think the edits by Tiptoethrutheminefield are also edit warring - has Tiptoethrutheminefield any comments", and then leave it for a while, giving me time to reply, or for others to comment. Instead you made a decision without any imput from anyone - no admins, no interested editors, no involved parties. And you gave it all no more than 12 minutes consideration. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Im other words - I am asking you to reverse the restriction you gave me, and reinstate the case in the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement amd mark it as still open. Then, in that case, give your assertion (and justification for your assertion, please) that I was edit warring. And let me respond. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
To answer your point about procedure, WP:AC/DS does not require any discussion prior to imposing a sanction. But if you convince me why I should lift the sanction, I will do so. You can make your case here if you would like to argue that what you can be seen doing here and here is not edit-warring.  Sandstein  17:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no breaking of 3rr by me, or even 2rr. Is that not the key indicator for edit warring? I see no offending edit explanations from me, I see no lack of valid edit explanations from me. I see no diffs from you. I followed all the guidelines in Wikipedia:WARRING. I tried to discuss the issues in the talk pages [14],[15],[16], [17],[18],[19]. I tried to make compromises [20]. Then, rather than continue with fruitless editing, I ceased editing the articles completely (as advised in wp:warring), I raised the matter at the appropriate venue (again as advised in wp:warring), and I left the edits by Jaqeli to remain as the final edits. If you are seeing something in my editing that I don't see, please point it out. In that 12 minutes of consideration, did you actually look at what the edits consisted of or read any of the talk? Since when has reverting the invalid removal of a properly inserted and explained fact tag been wrong? And is not the repeated removal of correctly placed tags considered vandalism? Are you saying that on the Mesrop Mashtots article I was wrong to believe that mentioning (but never actually citing) a talk page discussion on one article cannot be used as a way to override the obligation to properly explain edits made on another article (and that the Wikipedia advice page [21] I was guided by was also wrong). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not persuasive. Edit warring does not require breaking any xRR. It's just any form of sustained back-and-forth reverting, including at a slow pace. You made substantially similar reverts at Georgian scripts 5 times in August alone, and stopped reverting only because you won the edit war: nobody reverted you back. Whether or not a tag should be removed or added is a content matter that does not justify edit-warring, and removing tags is, on its own, not vandalism, just as adding them isn't. Discussing on talk pages is good, but does not excuse or mitigate edit-warring. I don't understand what you mean to say about Mesrop Mashtots, but it doesn't sound like anything to excuse edit-warring.  Sandstein  19:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on - there was no substantial back and forth reverting. Give me the diffs. How is an editor meant to tackle a wrong date in an article other than firstly tagging it with a fact tag, then replacing the tag if it is deleted without reason, then, when it is deleted again, replacing that tag with a less aggressive clarify tag, then replacing that when it too is removed, then altering the content to match what the source says, since no source has been forthcoming to back up the fact-tagged date, then raising the matter when that altered content is deleted. And doing it slowly, never making more than once edit a day. How would you have done it? I would like your advice about how you would have done this differently. If you cannot propose an alternative, you really have no right to object to my editing. And what do you mean by "stopped reverting only because you won the edit war". Show me the diffs to back that allegation up. I stated above that I decided to let the edits by Jaqeli remain as the final edits, ie., from my pov I let the WRONG edit remain, again exactly what wp guidance says should be done. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
What I would have done would be to stop reverting after the first of second time of being reverted back, and tried to get the opinion of others, such as via WP:3O. An edit war is still an edit war even if it is made one edit per day rather than one per minute. You "won" the war with your edit yesterday at Georgian scripts, which is the current revision save for a bot edit, although it was in fact you who stopped reverting at Mesrop Mashtots. Listen, I'm not here to bully you or anything, but this is a sensitive topic area to which higher levels of good conduct than usual are applied, so I'm just looking for some confirmation that you can handle a content disagreement in a non-edit-warlike way in the future. So far I'm not altogether persuaded.  Sandstein  20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems like bullying to me. I am a new editor - 6 months or so - I think I am doing rather well to have looked at Wikipedia's advice pages about warring and to have understood the correct purpose of tags and talk pages and so on. Yet, even when I seem to have followed the given advice to the letter, I now get told that is unimportant and that it is only administrators who say what is right or not.
What justification have you to state, out of the blue, something as obscure as "edit warring does not require breaking any xRR. It's just any form of sustained back-and-forth reverting, including at a slow pace", and then immediately use that as a reason to inflict editing restrictions? I am not saying your statement is wrong, but can you can cite some advice page on Wikipedia to back it up (a page that a newish editor would have had a reasonable chance to come across). I don't think you can. Alternatively, can you cite an example where I have been personally warned that such editing could be considered edit warring. There you cannot. The justification you gave for the restriction was "(I) considered that you were familiar with the policy that prohibits it (edit warring)". Yes, I am familiar with all the normal policies, things like Wikipedia:WARRING and so on, but where is there mention of slow pace editing amounting to edit warring? What I am trying to say is that you have used the infringement of something that no ordinary newby editor is ever likely to know about as a justification for giving out sanctions. Why are you not more interested in giving advice and encouragement to editors instead? Why the rush to inflict punishment? Why did you not just explain to me that my edits amounted to edit warring and then left it at that. I would have noted your advice and learned not to edit that way. And if I had repeated that style of editing in the future, you would have had a REAL reason to give out a restriction. That is what I am now inviting you to do, set aside the restriction and replace it with advice I will follow. If your advice helps me edit properly, without the risk of getting restrictions, of course I will follow that advice.
And regarding that "winning the war", I was refering to the process of stopping editing and raising the matter further. I stopped editing, left the articles at the "wrong" version, and initiated an arbitration request. And then I waited, and waited. I waited for 5 days, waited until the request I had raised vanished without comment or action from the page it was posted on. Only then did I revert. How long should I have waited for. A week, a month, or longer? How much time must pass before it no longer counts as a "slow pace" edit war? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's rather simple. WP:EW describes edit warring to occur when editors "repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion"; it does not add that these reversions must happen within any particular time frame, So, one revert a year is just as much an edit war as one a minute, it just takes longer to be recognizable as an edit war. Because your complaint alleged that the other editor who reverted your contributions was edit-warring, you ought not to be surprised that your reverts of their reverts are just as much edit-warring. I believe that I have explained the reasons for my sanction adequately and will not continue this discussion.  Sandstein  09:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I wish I had done some research about you before I posted my innocent querry asking what happened to the arbitration enforecment request. But being wise after the event is at least better than never being wise. Your supposed "explanation" for giving me a restriction is a complete bastardisation of the proper reasons for having sanctions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE about Wickey-nl

I probably do not have any standing to complain about this (probably it should come from the Wickey-nl himself), but I want to point out some issues. I believe this sanction is extraordinarily harsh and unfair.

  • The points raised in the original complaint were almost all ignored or deemed not actionable. (WP:NPA, copyvio, WP:NOTFORUM etc.). The grounds for the ban were almost exclusively the combative statements made by Wickey-nl on the WP:AE page. This leads to a strange conclusion that if Wickey-nl had made no statement at all, he would probably have escaped any sanction, except perhaps a warning. While I am not defending the statements he made, do those trump all the edits he made on actual wikipedia articles and their talk pages?
  • The only charge which has some merit is "bias". But who doesn't have bias in WP:ARBPIA? I certainly do. I can think of 10 other users in my short stint who exclusively add material which is "pro-Israel" and at least 5 others who exclusively add "pro-Palestine". This is not sufficient grounds for topic banning someone, otherwise nobody would be left to edit.
  • Wickey-nl's comment about "hasbara" (which he modified later to "pro-Israel") is again an opinion (hardly unjustified I might add). Deeming someone biased is not the same as saying that you cannot work with them. The same goes for believing that Wikipedia suffers from "systemic bias" about Israel. He makes it clear in his statement @Bbb23: Wrong conclusion. While this is not the place to evaluate the system, I do not say that I will not take into account the reality of the existing dominant interpretations.
  • There has to be a demonstration that a user makes tendentious edits, refuses to use talk page constructively and so on (none of which has been made, or were dismissed as not actionable) for someone to decide that a user is incompetent to work in this area.
  • The final point is that English is not the user's native language, so many comments come out really harsh. I am quite sure, that if I was in his shoes, I could have made the same points with the same intensity without saying stuff like "corrupt" etc. Kingsindian (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right that any appeal about the sanction should (and may) be made only by the sanctioned user and not by others. See, generally, WP:AC/DS#Appeals.  Sandstein  16:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sandstein: I was indeed aware of the policy. My points were not intended as a formal appeal, but only conveying my opinion about this to you. You can ignore it if you wish. Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup

Hi Sandstein. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup. Would you move Match World Cup to the draft namespace at Draft:Match World Cup, so I can add the sources mentioned in the DRV to the article. I will list Matchworld Cup at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchworld Cup after the sources are added to have a community discussion about whether it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  18:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have started the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchworld Cup.

Would you restore Talk:Match World Cup and move it to Talk:Matchworld Cup? Would you also restore 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, and 2013 Match World Cup and redirect them to Matchworld Cup?

Nickst (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup: "Also please restore season articles (2011, 2012, 2013) into my namespace for further working/merging into main article (as was made with ru:Match World Cup)." But since the main article has been restored to mainspace, I think redirecting them to it rather than moving them into Nickst's userspace is a better option. Cunard (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree with proposition. Please, restore 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, and 2013 Match World Cup and redirect them to Matchworld Cup. NickSt (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather wait and see how the deletion discussion concludes.  Sandstein  15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Korra

Firstly, "unneeded" is uncalled for. The original summary for E12 was bare and minimal, so I added more from the episode. Also, there were grammar mistakes, so I reworked those. Secondly, the poison behaves the same way real mercury does. I wasn't the only one who thought of that. Also, no improvement? Really? Are you just trying to get a monopoly on the article?--Seokhun (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm copying this from my talk page to Talk:The Legend of Korra (Book 3) and will reply there.  Sandstein  18:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Source falsification

Hi

Do you consider a source falsification a conduct problem?--Shrike (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Depending on the circumstances, yes.  Sandstein  12:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Category antisemitism

As Category talk:Antisemitism in the United States has a more recent RfC than 'rules' set at a 2011 CFD, endorsed by the recent RfC, and was closed with "closing per request over at WP:ANRFC. There is consensus not to remove or specifically exclude all BLP's from this category. As long as WP:BURDEN is met, and the sources are all reliable etc etc., they can be included in this, and other similar, categories. While there are concerns about people being mis-labelled, as long as all relevent BLP guidelines are followed, there shouldn't be an issue. --Mdann52talk to me! 4:39 pm, 12 June 2014" it appears to me that the recent RfC can't override that specific decision. Comment? Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is a bit confusing. Who is this, Mdann52talk or Dougweller? And how does this concern me? I don't remember participating in any related discussion.  Sandstein  08:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Mdann closed Category talk:Antisemitism in the United States#People should not be in this category saying ". There is consensus not to remove or specifically exclude all BLP's from this category." This was on 12 June 2014, although the content was over a year old. It was closed per a request at ANRfC. You closed an RfC at Category talk:Antisemitism recently. How does that affect, if at all, the decision at Category talk:Antisemitism in the United States? Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments? People are being added to Category:Antisemitism in the United States on the basis of the RfC there. I think this is all a bit nutty frankly. I know we can misuse almost anything, but that's not a reason to ban the use of obvious categories. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, as this category does have people in it, I'm assuming that it is ok to use it for people - carefully. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Sorry, it seems I missed replying to the above. I don't really have an opinion about this, off the cuff at least.  Sandstein  16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Margaret G. Hays

Hello there! I just had a question about your decision to redirect Margaret G. Hays to Grace Drayton. In my opinion while these two articles are related due to subject, I don't think that the Grace Drayton article adequately captures Hays's work. They did collaborate at times but Hays has enough independent work without Drayton to merit her own article remaining included. Thanks for your time and attention! Alicb (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not edited that article. BaseballChue (talk · contribs) created the redirect, not I.  Sandstein  12:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, now I see, you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret G. Hays. That discussion resulted in consensus to omit a separate article. But the discussion was sparsely attended, so I can reopen it if you can supply sources that show that Margaret G. Hays meets the requirements for an article described at WP:GNG or WP:BIO.  Sandstein  12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Sorry for the confusion, I was confused since the edit was signed as you. I will take a few hours later today and summarize the sources for the Hays article to meet the requirements at that page. Thanks again! Alicb (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/August#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup

Hi Sandstein. At User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/August#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup, I asked you to restore 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, and 2013 Match World Cup and redirect them to Matchworld Cup.

You said in response to me and Nickst (talk · contribs) that you wanted to wait until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchworld Cup concluded. The AfD has now been closed as keep. Would you restore and redirect those articles? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

After looking at this again, I don't think that any of the previous discussions resulted in consensus that the notability of the event in general implies the notability of the individual, annual events. These articles would therefore need to undergo deletion review also, or maybe you can discuss this with the original AfD closer.  Sandstein  06:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have followed your advice and have taken these event articles to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles for a community review to restore and redirect them to Matchworld Cup. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Novelization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London After Midnight. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GIADA

Dear Sandstein, I am writing to you as you deleted our article "GIADA". Our intention in creating the article GIADA was not really to be promotional, we would really appreciate to be part of your project but we are quite new on Wikipedia and our errors might be due to that. We think that our presence on Wikipedia would be worth both for us and for you. Our sources are notable as are the major newspapers and magazines in Italy. We would really appreciate if you could help us in improving our article so that it can stay on Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your support. Silvia.gasparri (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. GIADA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIADA. That discussion resulted in consensus to delete the article. But the discussion was sparsely attended, so I can reopen it if you can cite specific sources that show that GIADA meets the requirements for an article described at WP:GNG.  Sandstein  17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your precious feedback. I'm providing here some references showing that GIADA meets the requirements for an article described at WP:GNG. Many of them are in Italian, of course we are willing and available to provide translation if necessary, and, if you give us an email, we can send you the scan of paper sources. All of these sources are Italian famous magazines, some are major national press release or dossiers. There is more publication that we can provide upon request. We would be really grateful if you could reopen the discussion.
  • Catalano, Sofia. "Torna a casa il marchio italiano che ha fatto fortuna in Cina", Corriere della Sera, 7 September 2013, p. 41
  • Sacchi, Annachiara. "Monte Napoleone, un business da 3 miliardi", Corriere della Sera Milano, Milano, 15 September 2013
  • Ferré, Giusi. "Giada. Così la Cina entra nel salotto del lusso", Corriere economia, 9 September 2013, p. 10.

Silvia.gasparri (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've reopened the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Do you think that it might be useful to rewrite the article in order to make it more objective and encyclopedic? In case, can we proceed to rewriting now, even though the article is under discussion? We would really appreciate any comments and/or suggestions from you. Thanks so much again.

(Silvia.gasparri (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC))

Yes, you may in principle edit the article while its deletion is being discussed. This may influence the opinion of those participating in the deletion discussion. See generally WP:GACR for ways how to improve an article's quality. But if you are associated with GIADA, you should also follow the advice at WP:COI.  Sandstein  11:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

a welcome picture

Hi, there's really too much bureaucracy for me to handle but I think you are a right person to ask for clarifications (I hope). My question was raised here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Painting_a_welcome_picture. I'd be happy to move this elsewhere but, from the little I've seen, I'd be weary of political assassination. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/August&oldid=1068588583"