User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/March

I'd like to get your advise please

Hi Sandstein, I'd like to get your advise please on an issue that kind of similar to the one you were involved in solving a few months ago, but in my understanding you're going to be out most of the week. So the question is, if you have a time to deal with my issue tomorrow, or you do not. If you do, I'd explain to you the situation, if you do not, there is no need to post it to your talk page. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be away from the Internet most of this week.  Sandstein  07:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy your Wikibreak, Sandstein. I guess the rest of us will have to start pulling our weight at AE ;). AGK [•] 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Old speedy deletion review

Hi Sandstein, I was just looking up an educational nonprofit, and found that it was speedied despite a citation and numerous references in mainstream media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Management_Leadership_for_Tomorrow

I also see that you deleted the personal bio of the last author of that article (though it could just have been moved to his userpage) - perhaps it looked like a personal COI of his. But the original article had 6 or 10 other contributors over many months. Would you mind undeleting it? You could put it up for AfD if you wish, though it seems to need rewriting rather than further proof of notability. –SJ+ 05:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Management Leadership for Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it was written entirely in a non-neutral, promotional, glossy-brochure style, per WP:CSD#G11. The previous version was also rather promotional. The external references seem to be all or mostly dead links or reprints of press releases. I do not think that Wikipedia benefits from a restoration of the article about a possibly non-notable entity in this poor shape, but I will userfy it to your userspace for improvement if you so request.  Sandstein  12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Jullien Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it was literally a personal CV written in the first person and full of self-promotion, per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. There is no better prior version of this article. I will therefore not restore this articles, but anybody may recreate it in a form that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria.  Sandstein  12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

tel kepa

Hi Dear Sandstein

I would like to know why you reject my edit and block my user from edit, my article had reference and lot of link but you or wikipedia system reject it. please tell me the reason.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshirabadi (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you may refer to your changes to Tel Keppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You were blocked and your changes were reverted because you copied whole sentences from another website into that article. Wikipedia does not allow this, as explained on your user talk page, because it is a copyright violation.  Sandstein  12:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Desyop

Wow! Your decision is the blindside equivalent of a sucker punch. From the beginning, you’ve made no secret of your desire to forgo any action against SD and to sanction me. You were absent from these discussions for a number of days and during your absence, different, newer diffs were introduced and more admins joined this thread, intelligently and thoroughly debating the issues presented. In your haste to sanction me, you’ve completely ignored and disregarded the views of at least four admins who suggested equal if not greater sanctions for SD. By your own admission, you neglected to read my posts and forced me to post twice and sometimes three times until you acknowledged them. In desperation, I had to post in the admin section until I got your attention. You completely ignored OUTING efforts by SD. In sum, your decision was arbitrary and capricious and demonstrates contempt for the views of your fellow admins. It also demonstrates an acute laziness on your part for failing to thoroughly review the diffs presented. Most importantly, by ignoring egregious OUTING efforts by SD as well as his inability to acknowledge wrong-doing for his actions, it represents the callous way in which you regard the privacy rights of others. You should be stripped of your administrative tools.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your view is noted. If you believe my decision was wrong, you can appeal it as provided for in the discretionary sanctions remedy.  Sandstein  14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the issues you raise, the conduct of Supreme Deliciousness is being examined elsewhere on the AE page. Any misconduct by him, or any failure by admins to respond to such misconduct, is not relevant with respect to the question whether you were correctly sanctioned for your own misconduct.  Sandstein  14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding to JJGs comments, the only admin that looked at the entire enforcement I started was Sandstein, no other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality policy

You say: But if an editor is mainly dedicated to editing many articles so as to present one side of the conflict in a better light, and does not make any substantial changes in favor of the opposing point of view, then it is exceedingly unlikely that all the articles they edit are biased in favor of the opposite POV, and the only reasonable explanation for this pattern of editing is a desire to push a partisan point of view on Wikipedia as a whole, in violation of WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I intend to henceforth sanction editors whose editing history shows that they are mostly dedicated to favoring a particular point of view across many articles, in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, for violating the neutrality policy. I believe this approach is misguided and illogical. Coniser the following example. A controversial A/B area has 200 articles. If we assume, for a moment, that on average wikiepdia is neutral but with some statistical errors, then 100 articles will be at least slightly biased towards A, the other 100 towards B. Also naturally 40 will be strongly biased towards A and vice versa. Editor C from A 'camp' sees 20 of these artiles as problematic. Naturally, he tries to correct these artlces. He encounters editors with opposing views who try to defend their POV. In the course of civil but robust discussion, consensus emerges and the articles gradually improve. This is how Wikipedia is built in many controverdsial areas. And yet under your approach, editor C will be indefinitely topic banned. Everyone has biases. But unless they cause serious disruption they should be allowed to contrinbute to Wikipedia. In my view, your approach runs contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. I am interested in your response. I intend to seek opinion of other admins. Please note my concern is not related to one particular action of yours, but the whole approach described above and demonstrated in a number of your recent AE actions across several ArbCom DS areas. - BorisG (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid question. But I believe you are mistaken. In the hypothetical example you cite, by "fixing" only the articles that the editor believes are biased towards the other side, but not fixing (or even recognizing) the articles that are biased towards his own side, the editor violates WP:NPOV because, in aggregate, his edits push Wikipedia as a whole into the direction of his own point of view. But the neutralicy policy applies to an editor's whole editing stance as well as to any individual edits. Editors may have their own opinions about a topic, but they must set these aside when editing; ideally one should not be able to tell by an editor's edits what opinion (if any) they hold about the topic. Few will meet this expectation, of course, but where the opposite is true - where an editor's opinion is transparent in each and every article edit - they are not editing neutrally.  Sandstein  16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I believe you are inventing your own policy, which may be useful to put down the flames in some extreme cases, but is detrimental to the goals of wikipedia in general. I will think how to challenge it. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all Sandstein, I think I should say that although we've had our differences, I've been encouraged by a couple of your recent judgements at AE which seem to me to be moving very much in the right direction (clarification: I am not referring to particular sanctions, but rather to certain principles cited in discussion of cases). On this particular matter, however, I think I must concur with the general thrust of Boris' comments. I just don't think it's practical to try and judge users based upon whether their edits tend to favour one side or not. I think it's perfectly acceptable for editors to edit according to their POV. What is not acceptable is when that tips over into breaching policies by misrepresenting sources, promoting fringe POVs and so on.

I know there must be a great temptation on the part of AE adjudicators to try and find a short cut that will go some way toward alleviating the often difficult task of sorting the wheat from the evidential chaff. However, I don't think this is the answer. Gatoclass (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, I believe my and Gato's point of view is consistent with many ArbCom decisions. In particular, a number of parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles were obviously in the category of one-sided editors you mentioned. Yet the ArbCom did not topic ban a single one of them. Or, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, while many editors received long sanctions (most of them on parole), these were for specific disruptive patterns, such as systematic edit warring or pesronal attacks. - BorisG (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of JJG, there has been constant npov violations. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the current AE's (I couldn't be bothered to read them in detail), WP:NOTADVOCATE is a policy. It's ignored by many editors. It has to be enforced and Sandstein's approach would identify editors who are not complying with the policy and stop them. I think there are several flaws in Boris' model by the way. It's based on the assumption that editors who advocate can reliably recognise bias, fringe POVs and whether they are breaching policies. They can't. They're biased. Actually it's more like an agnosia. I'm generalizing of course but when editors can't or won't recognize important things like whether a place is inside or outside of a country or the consensus views of the international community and will fight to the wiki-death for years and years about these issues, something has to be done. The model assumes that what is in effect random POV drift over time (through edits/discussions) can eventually produce NPOV policy compliance. It hasn't and it won't in the I-P top area because the editor population is too small so drift produces something akin to fixation in population genetics in many articles and a mess in many others. There's also something akin to the founder effect which can be seen in the numerous new articles that are created by partisan editors who actively promote one POV. Editor's driven by their beliefs can out-edit disinterested editors everytime. The model also assumes that editors are rational wiki-rule based agents who interact in such a way that the results of their interactions will produce content that is consistent with the rules of the project. Or at least that the collaboration process is dominated by rational agents. That isn't my experience. Many editors are irrational, combatative, try to impose their world view on articles, frustrate efforts to impose policy compliance because they can't or won't recognise it, etc etc, the familiar problems. Consequently, many editors just give up and walk away from the articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct Sean. But you aren't going to only penalize the irrational, agenda-driven editors if you take the view that a given set of edits which favors one side is sufficient evidence for applying a sanction. What about the editors who are on the other side of those agenda-driven editors? Simply by trying to NPOV those articles, those editors too will be in the firing line if we enacted an approach like this.

In regards to your comments about "editors [who] can't or won't recognize important things like whether a place is inside or outside of a country or the consensus views of the international community", I agree that there was a breakdown of process that allowed those particular disputes to continue so long. But under Sandstein's proposed approach, all those editors who were trying to prevent that would be equally as culpable. What should have happened in that instance was simply for adjudicating admins to ask themselves who was promoting a WP:FRINGE POV and who was not. As long as admins stick to specific and demonstrable policy breaches, appropriate outcomes can be achieved. This is not the case if the community starts adopting one-size-fits-all solutions. Gatoclass (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"admins to ask themselves who was promoting a WP:FRINGE POV and who was not.", wasn't that exactly what Sandstein did here? Concerning the npov violations. See also Due and undue weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what he did because I didn't look closely at the decisions. But if that's an accurate description, then I think I would have to support that approach. Gatoclass (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors who try to impose NPOV on those articles would be out of scope of a process that would sanction "editors whose editing history shows that they are mostly dedicated to favoring a particular point of view across many articles, in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, for violating the neutrality policy." They wouldn't be violating the neutrality policy. I read Sandstein's statement as being consistent with your statement if admins can recognise the difference between NPOV and POV. I also don't necessarily see sanction as meaning losing the editor. I can think of one editor who fits the criteria for being sanctioned for consistently "favoring a particular point of view across many articles, in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions" and thereby "violating the neutrality policy." They have never been in any trouble, they've very nice, they aren't high profile or known, no one has ever filed an AE against them, but I think they might change their editing behavior if they knew that they could be sanctioned if they carry on Sean.hoyland - talk 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that such sweeping generalizations would or could be appropriately interpreted by admins. I have little doubt, indeed, that almost immediately such a policy would be found to apply to practically any editor by some admin or another. Certainly I'm happy for admins to look for evidence of POV pushing but that can't be done simply by counting the number of edits that happen to favour one viewpoint over another and determining on that basis that a user is pushing a POV. Things are not quite so simple. Gatoclass (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's true that wiki justice is fairly random and it's not simple to measure bias. The terms in Sandstein's statement such as "editing history", "mostly", "favoring" and "many articles" would need to be more concrete so that people would know roughly when an editor had crossed a threshold (although by the time it's a problem it's usually pretty obvious) but I see it as something that would provide some more teeth to the "Remedies" section of the discretionary sanctions. The "Editors reminded" and "Editors counseled" sections are great but people seem to ignore them. It would be better if they knew that they can't. I think Sandstein's approach might actually help improve article content and hopefully reform editors who find it difficult to disengage their limbic system while editing and just follow policy. I don't think it would make things worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sean, so if I take ten articles in I/P area you have edited in recent times, your edits won't be looking like trying to present one side of the conflict in a better light? - BorisG (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't know what that set of edits or indeed anything else you look at looks like to you so I can't answer that question. I don't know what that set of edits would contain either. I know that there is no dependency between my edits and the notion of "sides of a conflict". My edits in the I-P topic area tend to be reactive i.e. triggered by edits made to articles I have watchlisted. So, there is the edit that catchs my eye (which is often just vandalism) and the set of wiki-rules. If there is, in my view, a mismatch between that edit and the set of rules, I will make an edit (or a comment) intended to correct it (if I have time). Which "side of the conflict" that edit falls under isn't part of the decision and is of no interest. I try to edit like a deterministic bot in the I-P topic area as far as possible which is pretty easy because I really don't care or have an opinion that matters about whether Jerusalem is or isn't the capital, whether a settlement is or isn't illegal, whether an action is or isn't a war crime etc etc. I only care about whether information in the I-P topic area is consistent with policy. If someone looked at my edits (and I would welcome such an analysis) and saw a pattern that, in their view, presented one side of the conflict in a better light then I can be pretty confident that that person is unable to reliably and objectively assess bias and editor behavior and that their assessment is probably compromised by a type I error caused by apopheia. It would be like seeing a pattern in coin toss sequence. The reason I can be confident about that is that I have the advantage of actually knowing what the simple decision procedures I use to make edits are, I know that they are independant of the sides of a conflict, and I know that they are (or at least intended to be) consistent with the set of wiki-rules. Unlike many other editors I don't edit in contentious areas like the I-P topic area or Western Sahara etc because I have views about the topics or care about them. I'd rather be editing other articles (and often do). Dealing with advocates, nationalists and zealots etc is often unpleasant but I edit in the contentious areas because I think the topics lack disinterested editors who are willing to devote a little bit of time to look at the information as if it is just information and simply try to do some policy compliance checks and fixes. The assumption that editors in a contentious topic are members of 'a camp', that all editors are biased and that this determines their behavior may be accurate in very many instances but it can also be wrong. Many editors in the I-P topic area correct spelling/disambiguation/format errors, fix links, etc and many edits are made by bots. I see my edits as no different from those even when they address a contentious issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sean, I did not look up any of your edits, I just had an impression that some of your statements tended to favor one side, but I may be wrong. My question was hypothetical. Maybe you are indeed one of those rare people who prefer to edit in areas where they can be completely disinterested (and let's take correction of obvious vandalism and spelling errors out of the equation). The fact is that the majority of people editing in, say, Armenia/Azerbaijan area appear to be from Armenian or Azeri heritage, and if we were to ban all of them for the behaviour described by Sandstein, many articles in this area will not be written. I think we need to be smarter than that, and develop rules that encourage constructive and collaborative editing leading to good articles, despite very strong views held by the editors on both sides. - BorisG (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Tendentious editing: Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation. I think a number of editors topic banned by yourself in a number of areas belong to the former category. What do you think ? - BorisG (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be so. If so, the topic ban may cause them to realize their problem and contribute usefully after it expires.  Sandstein  16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In the recent closure of JJG, I hope you took into account that much of the evidence presented against him occurred before the end of his most recent topic ban in February, just as he presented a litany of diffs that occurred prior to SD's recent ban. While I am not disagreeing his actions at articles create disruption, it seems that only half of the situation is being addressed and I am curious as to why. The rash of poor behavior from both parties (battlefield mentality, the recent outing attempts at a number of talk pages etc.) that has occurred during the "presentation of evidence" phase of this AE seems to only underline the fact that both editors have failed to learn from their previous topic bans. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the evidence section, his topic ban was lifted on 2 Feb, and the diffs given as evidence relate to edits of 3 Feb and later. So I don't understand your statement that "much of the evidence presented against him occurred before the end of his most recent topic ban in February".

It is true that other editors may also have engaged in problematic editing (indeed it is usual in such circumstances), but I prefer to act on evidence that is submitted in the form of an AE request. If an AE request is made regarding any post-topic ban disruption in this matter by other editors, I or other AE admins will examine the evidence and if necessary act on it.  Sandstein  16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who edit medical articles in order to present their topics from the point of view of medical science and they have even developed reliable source guidelines for medical articles, WP:MEDRS. Do you think they harm Wikipedia because they object to articles saying that water fluoridation is a government plot? How should they edit from the other side? TFD (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow topics to be presented from any particular point of view, including the "point of view of medical science". Instead, we are required to adopt a neutral point of view that takes into account relevant minority views in proportion to their importance as reflected in reliable sources (which in your example would probably amount to one or two sentences that mention the existence of such fringe beliefs as a social phenomenon). In such cases the problem is situated slightly differently because editing disputes do not focus on who is "good" and who is "evil", as in most conflicts of the Arab-Israeli type, but how much prominence should be given to minority (i.e. non-scientific) opinions. While in theory I suppose it would be possible for an editor to violate WP:NPOV by systematically erasing all mentions of opinions that disagree with mainstream science, in practice (in my experience) fringe opinions tend to be presented too prominently in articles, and an editor who systematically removes excessive mentions of them should not too readily be considered non-neutral. That is not so in political disputes such as the Arab-Israeli disputes, where we cannot operate on the assumption that there is one global mainstream academic opinion that should be the principal basis of the article.  Sandstein  18:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

an editor who systematically removes excessive mentions of them should not too readily be considered non-neutral. I think so too, but consistent application of your approach would see them topic banned. - BorisG (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

AE appeal by Alinor

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Alinor. Alinor (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans needed

Hello. I'm a fairly active Wikipedia editor who has gotten sucked into following (in a lurking fashion) some of the bizarre politics going on here. Who knew conspiracy theories about Shakespeare would generate so much enormous heat and conflict? But it's not surprising that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict leads to major problems. I'm writing because I see that you've been active in sanctioning some of the major offenders (e.g. recently Jiujitsuguy).

Someone not long ago remarked somewhere in some discussion page that the IP area really needs more editors who don't belong to one of the warring factions. I believe I am potentially the kind of editor you might want to attract. I have a long history of contentful and constructive edits, and I try to be very careful in separating out my opinions from what the facts suggest, writing in an unbiased fashion and removing bias when I see it. I would warrant that my editing history bears this out. I have never been sanctioned, rarely warned, and rarely accused of being POV. I have a strong personal interest in the topic of IP and have done an enormous amount of thinking and reading up on different points of view to try and refine my views as well as determine to what extent the conflicting heated assertions made on different sides are valid. I'll admit that I have sympathies towards one side, and this is almost certainly visible in my editing history if someone bothers to look at it enough. However, I doubt you'll find very many people who care about this issue and don't have personal opinions. What makes a good editor is not so much being disinterested as being able to recognize what is and isn't biased and to give due credence to opposing viewpoints.

However, I've stayed out of IP editing and similar "minefield" articles, even though they're often littered with poor writing, bias, original research, non-encyclopedic additions, etc., for the same reason as probably all the other non-POV-warring potential editors: Editing such articles is enormously unpleasant and thankless, as almost any attempt to correct the problems I just mentioned is likely to get reverted by a POV warrior. If you want your change to stick, you have to spend enormous amounts of time and energy defending every word of your change on the talk page. You soon discover the unfortunate reality, which is that the POV warriors have more energy than you do and have more stomach than you do for conflict, and aren't going to give up until they get their way.

(Apologies if you take "POV warrior" as an insult. To me it simply seems like the most appropriate term. There's clearly a battlefield, us-against-them mentality, and there's a clear POV involved. Not all such editors are honest enough to state their interest (e.g. "Wikipedia needs to have the Zionist perspective expressed more clearly!" or "This editor is an anti-Zionist"), but all have it.

I simply don't see any solution other than to aggressively topic-ban the POV warriors. If they genuinely want to reform, they can (e.g. as seems to have happened to Jayjg), but the burden of proof needs to be on them.

The problem is that Wikipedia currently is dysfunctional in that it sanctions people far more heavily for individual acts of "breaking the law" (e.g. outing someone or making an off-WP post asking for help in POV warring) rather than patterns of disruptive behavior. As an example, Supreme Deliciousness has (IMO) persistently been engaged in POV warring, which (IMO) has significantly negatively contributed to the IP articles, both directly (in introducing overall bias) and indirectly in contributing to a battlefield mentality that has forced away editors who aren't themselves POV warriors on one side or the other. Furthermore, he seems not to have taken his previous topic ban to heart (e.g. his response to a topic ban was the snarky comment "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" [1]). To me, this is seriously disruptive behavior, probably worthy of a long-term topic ban. Yet so far he was only topic-banned once, for 2 months, and after this sort of behavior had been going on well over a year. Furthermore, the ban was reversed halfway through, and people seem very reluctant to reapply it despite what appears to me to be a pattern of exactly the same sort of behavior as before. Yet when he outed Jiujitsuguy, an enormous uproar ensued with people threatening to ban him off WP entirely, forever. The bizarre thing is that it's trivially obvious to find out Jiujitsuguy's real name; it took me about a minute on Google.

To me, this reveals a major problem in the consensus attitude that WP admins seem to follow, an attitude that is far too lawyerly and fails to take the big picture into account. Wikipedia is not an exercise in governance, but a collaborative attempt to create an encyclopedia.

IMO admins should be far more willing to use topic bans to reduce POV warring. This should be viewed as less of a punitive measure and more as a "public safety" measure. It shouldn't require such an enormously long, official "legal" process, with statements from concerned parties, evidence presented, judgment rendered, etc. It should be more connected with overall behavior patterns and less with any individual acts of transgression. The topic bans should probably be small originally, only a few days at first, increasing eventually to an indefinite ban. If at all possible, major bans should be doled out to all offenders at the same time, both to avoid the appearance of favoritism and to reduce the possibility for the opposing side to view the ban as an opportunity to quickly push the bias of articles in their favor. To determine an "overall behavior pattern" obviously requires judgment; it should be based on patterns of edits that consistently change the slant of an article in one direction or another, on habits of frequent reverting edits that move the slant in the other direction, etc. Ideally, the judgment should be made by uninvolved admins with long experience, a good track record, no involvement with editing the particular subject at hand, and no historical pattern of trying to "protect" any of the involved parties (e.g. due to personal friendship or whatever).

I feel a bit conflicted about this, as in real life I'm a serious civil libertarian and I recognize that what I'm suggesting could be construed as license to step on or ignore Wikipedians' "rights to due process", etc. But I've come to the conclusion that the easy analogy to Western-style constitutional democracy isn't always the most helpful prism with which to evaluate Wikipedia, and that often it's much more helpful to adopt a cost-benefit analysis. People who are "POV warriors" (according to the definition I gave up above) tend to be causing far more harm than good to the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole, at least in the area they do their POV-warring in, just as in the way I described for SD above. Furthermore, they tend to be involved in far more sanctioning processes, often both as accusers and accusees, then other editors, and as a result use up a large amount of time on the part of administrators and other participants who are drawn into the accusation (not all of whom are POV warriors on the opposite side). By this analysis, WP gains significantly by topic banning POV warriors. The problem is that currently, AFAIK, just "being a POV warrior" by itself isn't really a legitimate charge for topic-banning someone; they typically have to break some other law (JayJG's "watch my back", or uncivil behavior towards others, or breaking the 3RR rule, or "gaming the system", etc.); and if they're clever to avoid doing this, they can continue their POV-warring behavior for months or years.

Feel free to question or ignore what I'm saying, or to cite, quote or republish elsewhere on Wikipedia if you want. I'm about to go on (real-life) vacation for a week, so I may not have much ability or time to respond to comments in the immediate future. Benwing (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with some of the things you write and disagree with others (in particular, I believe that sanctions should normally be based on an enforcement request and the evidence presented therein, so as to prevent arbitrary sanctions and to allow third party review of the sanction). But I would like to warn you, in particular, that you must not cast aspersions on others or make personal attacks against them, such as by calling them "a horrible POV warrior who seems to have no interest in reforming", without at the same time providing evidence for your assertions in the form of diffs.  Sandstein  10:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I apologize for that. I'm only injecting myself at all into such an obviously controversial topic as a result of a lot of frustration, knowing that WP is often the first go-to reference these days and genuinely wanting to help make things as objective as possible, but frustrated with the very high barriers to entry to participating in any of the "minefield" areas and seeing that the admin system that ought to handle these problems has (IMO) gotten out of balance.

I went ahead and rewrote the phrase you objected to in attempt to make it express basically the same semantic content (as I believe it's a legitimate complaint) but tone down the emotional content. I also added a diff to the evidence I cited. Note that I also greatly expanded the second-to-last paragraph, adding a discussion of cost-benefit analysis, which I believe is very important but is getting sorely neglected.

But just a comment here: Even your response betrays (very much IMO, of course) a very lawyerly approach to conflict. You didn't respond at all to any of the major points I brought up, other than saying you agree with some of them. Instead, you did two things: (1) You chose to respond to a procedural issue about topic bans, which from my perspective is a fairly minor issue. (I say minor because my concern is with instituting aggressive topic bans for POV-warring rather than the procedures themselves; I'm not against requiring full procedure for a major topic ban, as long as it doesn't suck up so much time that in practice the bans don't get done timely.) (2) You strongly and formally berated me (complete with emphatic you must not) for not following a particular procedure that I'm not really aware of, not having participated in (evidently somewhat formalistic) discussions of this sort.

As for your response in (1), I'm confused, because it appears that admins also have the power to unilaterally apply a sanction such as a ban, even an indefinite one (e.g. that happened to Jiujitsuguy, although reversed on appeal). How it this so different from the topic bans I'm suggesting? If anything, what I'm suggesting as an alternative to full procedure might have less capriciousness the current alternative to full procedure (i.e. unilateral action), because, at least in serious cases, it often might require a consensus of at least a few respected, uninvolved, COI-free admins.

When you have a chance, I'd appreciate hearing some of your thoughts about the major points I've made.

I have to apologize profusely, I'm about to miss my plane so there's no way I can respond any more for the next couple of days at least. Sorry about the bad timing here. I promise I will respond to any questions, etc. as soon as I can. Benwing (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I am a lawyer, so perhaps a certain degree of formalism is to be expected of me... I agree that systematic POV-pushing is detrimental to the encyclopedia and should result in sanctions if warnings are fruitless. The discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee in several contested topic areas in principle allow for such sanctions by any uninvolved administrator. But admins have long been reluctant (and justifiably so, in my opinion) to sanction POV-pushing, so as not to appear to intervene in content disputes with admin tools. The approach I am describing in one of the threads above (topic-ban editors who persistently edit many articles to promote one particular point of view) has the advantage of being content-neutral and therefore potentially less controversial, although as some have pointed out it must be used judiciously to avoid certain problems.  Sandstein  12:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Benwing, it is ironic that you argue exactly the same point as Sanstein two threads above (see Neutrality Policy). Please read my arguments against this approach. I must admit however that your arguments are also quite pursuasive. I also tend to run away from contentious areas seeing futility of my efforts. However if we ban POV warriers, are you sure there will be enough neutral editors to develop that particular part of wikipedia? Maybe in I/P area there will be, but what about Armenia-Azerbaijan area? Or Falung Gong? Thanks for your thoughtful comments, and sorry, Sandstein, for intrusion into your private space. - BorisG (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, May I please ask you,if it is OK to have pages like this one. I found out about this page because the user threatened me with it on her talk page. May I please ask you to note that some "evidences" in the user collection are from April and August of the last year, not to say the vast majority of "the evidences" are false, the whole false, nothing but the false. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC says that the following may not be on user pages: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." So, unless this page is intended for use in dispute resolution within the next few days or weeks, it should be blanked by its author or deleted.  Sandstein  14:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be so kind and notify the user about this policy? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, no; I am not your messenger. I suggest that you talk to the editor yourself if you find this page objectionable, per WP:DR.  Sandstein  14:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What a strange response! You are not my messenger, but you are an administrator, and I asked for your help. Anyway... My bad, I should have known whom to ask for help, and whom do not. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm always ready to help with admin actions, but notifying others about policy does not need admin tools. Admins are not dispute resolution authorities, sorry.  Sandstein  14:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I have no dispute with that user. I did not ask you to resolve any dispute. I only asked you to notify the user that she may not have an attack pages in her user space in accordance with wikipedia policy that you as an administrator should enforce. I asked you to do it for me because, if you did it, it would have had much more weight than, if I did it myself. IMO it was wrong of you to respond as you did. Besides you said "So, unless this page is intended for use in dispute resolution within the next few days or weeks, it should be blanked by its author or deleted." How many days are "a few days"? The page was started on February 25. Today is March 6. Are 9 days enough to be "a few days", and, if so, maybe you as my messenger :-) sorry, administrator could go ahead and delete it? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You disagree with the content of her user page. That is a dispute. You should try to resolve it with her per WP:DR. Admins can't do that for you. We can't, for instance, delete that page unless a WP:MFD concludes that it should be deleted because it has not been used in a timely manner (or unless it meets a WP:CSD, which it doesn't appear to do). So you should not be talking to me, you should be talking to Huldra. Discussion is not optional in such cases, it is required. See WP:DR#Discuss with the other party.  Sandstein  14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I moved your DYK nom from the 1 March creation section to the 6 march, per article's creation date. Regards. Yazan (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I seem to have edited the wrong header.  Sandstein  22:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your block of Ludwigs2

You may not be fully aware of how wrong this block was -- given the size of the mob of normally reasonable editors who turned Ludwigs2's report of QuackGuru against Ludwigs2 himself anyone can be forgiven to at first think they must be right -- but that's no excuse for this kind of arbitrary draconian action. If you unblock Ludwigs2 immediately this is going to significantly increase the odds that you can keep the admin bit. Hans Adler 00:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I got to agree with Hans here, this is completely unnecessary and way over the top. And I say this as someone who, if I remember correctly, has disagreed with Ludwigs2 on several previous occasions. At best, the statement was poorly worded but that's it. There's no reason to induce uber paranoia in established and respected editors in respect to every single word they may use. Support immediate unblock.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, if you don't agree with an admin action, the correct action to take instead of yelling at or scolding the admin in question is to open an ANI thread and ask for a community review of the action. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's always good to start by asking the admin about an action first, before going to ANI. But I agree that "yelling at or scolding" isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was totally cool, serious and honest. Since Sandstein declared this to be a arbitration enforcement block, Ludwigs2's only option was to appeal to Arbcom, which apparently he has done already. Some of the arbs must have been familiar with QuackGuru's MO for a long time, and even without that I expect them to look at the situation thoroughly and see what nonsense QuackGuru was fighting for, and with what methods. With some luck this may turn into a Sandstein arbitration case. The entire concept of AE blocks that can't be reversed can only work if serious or frivolous abuse is strongly discouraged. Hans Adler 01:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, this was one of Sandstein's trademark "I don't like the user and I think in this situation I can get away with a block" blocks, and it was the improved (arbitration enforcement) version of the ever popular method of blocking a user immediately before going to bed. Hans Adler 01:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have no particular feelings of like or dislike concerning Ludwigs2, or QuackGuru for that matter, nor do I believe that I have ever expressed any.  Sandstein  07:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like volunteers Adler and Marek to each nominate one draconian action that is not arbitrary; and one arbitrary action that is not draconian. This would help ordinary editors like myself to understand the urgent crises that you are bringing to our attention. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at 2 am when I am really trying to prepare a lecture for tomorrow. I don't keep files on other editors, so this kind of thing requires research. Also I never said it's urgent, except perhaps for Sandstein if he wants to save his bit. Hans Adler 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

By the time this gets to ANI and by the time an actual conversation takes place at ANI and then by the time that anything is actually done as a result of an ANI discussion it is quite likely that the block will have run its course. And the end result will be simply nothing, except a stain upon a person's reputation and an inappropriate (but who will remember that?) log in their log block. Even if the block is judged to have been wholly unfair, the time will have been served and that can't be undone - people will shake their heads, shrug their shoulders and Ludwigs will have been unfairly screwed.

Also, what exactly is your point Demiurge1000? That since it ain't you who got blocked you don't see what the big deal is?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

An arbitrary action that is non-draconian is the award of an Industrial Arbitration Award. A draconian act which is not arbitrary would be hanging drawing and quartering for Treason by coining after a properly constituted trial. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, though my position w/r/t QG has been pretty consistent, and I think this block was pretty unnecessary (at least under ArbCom sanctions and at a length of 3 days), raising the rhetoric to 'losing the bit' is similar to saying 'things are going go get ugly'. It just adds heat, I think, and distracts attention away from the actual fire. Ocaasi (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia could use improved civility. Having editors go around making threats does not improve the situation. Sandsteins block is not unreasonable given the comments. I am sure all Ludwig2 would have had to have done was simply acknowledge that a) what was said was inappropriate and b) agree to remove it and he would have gotten unblocked. Having another admin come in a revert things especially one who is favorable towards pseudoscience was not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well, if the users involved had followed my advice, and dispute resolution procedure, and opened a RFC on QuackGuru instead of raising a ruckus at AN (which is not a dispute resolution forum), we might now be usefully discussing QuackGuru's misconduct (if any) instead of an arbitration case against the admin who unblocked Ludwigs2 out of process.  Sandstein  07:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I have seen too much of over the years is a comment from an admin where a block is on the cards like, "knock it off or else..." (ofg course spelt out in many different ways) which generally inflames an already angry editor..and the inevitable happens. I like the idea of "talk softly but carry a very big stick" - a message along the lines of, "Hey edtor X, I understand you're frustrated and can see why (though I may not agree with it), but we really need to maintain a collaborative atmosphere and I really think you need to refactor/remove/retract your post so we can find a way forward. Take some time to have a breather but we need to send things in a more positive direction." - now if someone then gives the wiki equivalent of a one (or two)-fingered salute after that, then one has grounds for a significant block I would have thought. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I normally try to follow the adage suaviter in modo, fortiter in re myself. Evidently I did not manage to do so in this situation.  Sandstein  06:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, we all have off days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Submitting new BIO

HI Sandstein...I have been in touch with you in the past about issues and errors on my page (essentially due to not being aware of how WIKI works, what is appropriate, inappropriate, etc.) I have created a new BIO for my WIKI page, and would like to submit it to you for review. Please let me know the correct procedure. I also need to learn how to post photos. Thank you for your help, much appreciated. Constance DembyConstancemary (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This aparently concerns Constance Demby. Ms. Demby, I would like to ask you to read our page Wikipedia:Autobiography. It explains why editing, let alone writing, your own Wikipedia biography is not a good idea. I therefore recommend that you follow the guidance on that page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. For how to post photos, please see Help:Files.  Sandstein  06:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein... I had added content to this page and that content is now not visible so I will add it again, and I assume this will now show up on the April page? Or- how does that work? Clarifying the following statement that you commented on : “I have created a new BIO for my WIKI page” --- The current new version was actually written by author Kathlyn Safir. I supplied her with factual information, album info, dates, etc. Since there have been issues in the past, we both want to make sure that it's OK before it’s made public the site; we would like to know where to post it so that it can be edited and checked in case we need to change anything. thanks...Constance DembyConstancemary (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

reverted AFD closure

Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange

Thia user has reverted your closure of the AFD this morning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Avanu - Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Off2riobob posted, I'll use this section to comment: After seeing the discussion closed, I went to look at the AfD page for guidance.

"Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are debated for *at least seven days*, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus."

Since we had people commenting as late as yesterday, it seems slightly premature to close it -- since 7 days seems to be the minimum, and since we had about a 50/50 on keep vs others. In my header on the AfD, I recommend moving it to the incubator, not removing all the material.

I understand we have a lot of "keep" comments in the AfD, but there are also a lot of "delete" or "merge" or "other". In the header of the AfD, I recommended that it *not* be deleted per se, but moved to the Wikipedia incubator. Since we were *still* debating, and since the Wikipedia policy says "at least 7 days", I would ask that it be left open for a bit longer, especially since developments in the case might drastically alter people's outlook, and as we have more time to consider, it may also. Simply saying "7 days are up, that's it", does not seem to be in line with the guidelines from the AfD page. I appreciate your comments and guidance on this. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. But when to close an AfD is a decision made by the closing administrator, not the nominator. "7 days are up, that's it" is indeed the normal practice if enough people have commented, otherwise the discussion may be relisted. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange, it appears extremely unlikely that a consensus to delete could emerge through further discussion, so keeping the discussion open for a longer period of time would be of no use. If you disagree with this assessment, you can advance these arguments at WP:DRV if you desire; or you can start a second deletion discussion once there have been, as you say, "developments in the case that might drastically alter people's outlook". But if you continue to revert administrator closures of AFDs, you are likely to encounter a block for disrupting Wikipedia's processes.  Sandstein  15:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake then. I was interpreting the guideline more liberally. I appreciate you getting back to me on this, and of course, as the nominator, I felt there was progress to be made in the discussion. Initially the 'crowd' only said 'keep' as people seem to tend to follow inertia, but as it was discussed more and considered, we had people looking at it differently.

I don't feel there will be much reason to go through a discussion presently at the WP:DRV page, as you point out, we don't have a consensus yet. Again, I appreciate that you took a second to review this with me, and I'll keep this in mind in the future. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to see if I could get your opinion on re-nominating the article for deletion. Since this morning, we have seen editors continually adding gossipy news bites that have been mostly fended off in the past, but it seems to be catching hold in the article rather than diminishing. Several editors have been trying to hold the line and keep this sort of thing out, but just today we've had editors pulling back and forth on a contentious section involving allegations of misconduct by police in the Assange case. The problem we keep running into on this fork from the main Assange article is staying true to BLP concerns. I have renominated it because of the section added today that seems to run counter to BLP principles, but if you tell me to wait, I will withdraw/revert the nomination and be patient. As I said earlier, I want to keep proper procedures in mind when Wiki'ing, but I feel that this article is on the tipping point of turning into news-cycle pablum if it isn't reigned in. -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the renomination was unwise and is likely to be speedily closed because it is seen as disruptive. As others have said, AFD is not cleanup. If there are problematic edits, they can be remedied by reverting, or by requesting protection or sanctions for violating WP:BLP. Any renomination should only occur after a few months, or if the underlying factual basis has changed substantially.  Sandstein  07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence in the AE case

I'd be grateful if you can refer to me using my current username (which is also my username when I imposed the relevant sanction) rather than my previous one. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, must have copied it from somewhere old, probably the enforcement log.  Sandstein  20:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

your "list" at AE

I find the fact that you even included me in your list on AE to be completely ridiculous. Out of the six articles you list, two of them I've never edited in my life and on the rest I've made a single edit, in something like seven years. In each case of those single edits, I initiated talk page discussion, explained my edit and even asked for a third opinion. I've followed DR and BRD to the letter. I've bent over backwards to come to an understanding with others. I never edit warred. Yet you put me in there for no reason what so ever. I would appreciate it if you remove my name from that section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You made reverts that were part of an edit war. You are therefore included as part of an effort to cover the whole edit war. That you made few reverts will be taken into account in any eventual decision.  Sandstein  06:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You made reverts that were part of an edit war. - when I made those edits there was no revert war. Certainly not at Suvalkija where my edit is from 6 months before all this business! At Vilnius University and Bernardine Cemetery my edits were made before the edit war commenced and I can't be held responsible that Lokyz and others decided to go at it on those articles subsequently. On BC and VU it was a single, simple revert to apply WP:NCGN and based on the fact that other editors concerned have not bothered to use the talk page. I ceased editing those articles as soon as I got reverted!

That you made few reverts will be taken into account in any eventual decision. - thanks for this assurance but it sure as heck ain't looking like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

AE Gdansk (adding German)

Not true, I reverted a Polish contributor, look at my edit summary [2], please include this in my Gdansk section because my edits are NOT driven by nationalism as some may want to portray that.--Jacurek (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

Sandstein, do you mind if I ask few neutral and previously uninvolved administrators to look at this particular case? Perhaps few opinions of other people with administrating power may be helpful in reaching decision. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections, but to avoid WP:CANVASS issues it might be preferable that you ask on a noticeboard rather than on the talk pages of individual admins.  Sandstein  06:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will, thanks--Jacurek (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions

-Sandstain, Ed writes that changes to promote the same ethnicity are usually in bad faith but as you can see in my statement [3] unlike my opponents I was promoting various nationalities. Even in the summary you prepared [4] you can see that I have added a German name into the Gdansk article. Are you going to take that fact into consideration while reaching your decision?

Yes.  Sandstein  07:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

-Are you going to address the incivility issues [5] directed at me by my opponents as well?

Diffs?  Sandstein  07:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

[6] [7] [8] - more in my statement--Jacurek (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's problematic and also needs to be taken into account.  Sandstein  07:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ok Thank you --Jacurek (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

More Longevity

I've already alerted EdJohnston about this. I don't think admonition is working. David in DC (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this case and can't assess the problem.  Sandstein  18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I had meant to post to User:Amatulic's talk page. David in DC (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

AE for 9/11 questions

Hi, I had seen your sig a few times on the AE page, so I thought that you might be able to offer some advice on something. Ghostofnemo has been pushing hard for one conspiracy theory organization to be included more in the article on 9/11. This has been discussed on the talkpage a few times, on WP:NPOVN, and probably a few other places. Discussion ended up as no consensus or leave out. Unfortunately Ghostofnemo has taken it upon himself to continue this by now trying to use the talkpage of the noticeboard as a straw poll while complaining of censorship. He has been notified of the 9/11 sanctions, but doesn't seem to think that refusing to lick his wounds and move on is disruptive.--Terrillja _talk 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The actual discussion has been going on for more than a year see this RFC and its discussion. That was the last time there was sizable input from the broader community, sadly the RfC was never closed by an admin, which let the issue fester, at this point most people have moved on to other topics - but at the time the headcount showed support for the inclusion. Subsequent discussions seem to have focused on pointing to immediate and local consensus and while I haven't been following them closely, it also seems that discussions that sought to bring in wider community input have be closed down fairly quickly. If anything a proper RfC should be reopened and the previous participants notified. un☯mi 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo has been tenditiously pushing this for over a year now. Every single time, he's brought it up, it has failed to achieve consensus. Enough's enough. I warned the editor yesterday[9] but he hasn't stopped. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on NPOVN was open for a long time. There was no change in consensus given the "wider community discussion"--Terrillja _talk 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse NPOVN does not employ the RfC system of a final adjudicator who weighs the strengths of the arguments, it is fairly easy to claim consensus on poor grounds if you are vocal enough. I note for example that your argument of WP:UNDUE on the grounds of giving preferential treatment to one petition over another is unsubstantiated seeing as how this petition has demonstrably been covered in a number of sources - I see no evidence presented that other petitions have received similar coverage in RS - which would be the test for that particular argument. As stated above, I think it is probably best to open an RfC on the matter. un☯mi 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How will that end Ghostofnemo's disruption? If it fails again, he's just going to keep bringing it up. Bringing up the same thing over and over again is disruptive and it needs to end. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have ventured the idea of a final RfC on the matter to GoN, I expect that all involved parties will respect its outcome, in any case the resolution of one would make it easier to seek and get sanctions. un☯mi 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Making arguments on talk pages, even bad or repetitive arguments, is not normally grounds for AE sanctions. Only in the case of a severe WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT problem that persists even after a WP:RFC/U asked the user to stop could such sanctions be contemplated.  Sandstein  18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions for you

From Risker. NW (Talk) 23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking on this page for the conversation we were having some days ago....

Hi Sandstein, I have been busy producing events, today I returned to your talk page to continue our conversation, but discovered that the conversation we were having has disappeared. Where might I find that? it wasn't that long ago... sometime last week. Thanks, Constance Demby Constancemary (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(driveby) Try looking here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It is now featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposing less desctructive sanctions

Regarding this, there are still points I raised in my comment, waiting for a response. But regarding the proposed sanctions, I would like to implore you to reduce their severity. Please note that I am asking for reduction of their severity for both sides, and the "non-Polish" (if I may use such a generalization) side is getting sanctioned more heavily... In particular, I would like you to consider:

• changing "topic bans" to "1RR restrictions" (or even "1RR/week" ones), add "renaming ban" when it would be necessary (for example for Jacurek). This would apply to Jacurek, Lokyz and Dr. Dan. The reason is that most edits by those editors, outside renaming edit warring, tend to be constructive. Taking away their ability to revert war should be enough to mostly eliminate the battleground (although perhaps some civility parole could be useful, too).
• I would also like to ask you to reconsider whether any sanctions on VM are necessary. Sanctioning an editor for four reverts on four different articles means sending a signal that even adhering to 1RR and BRD can get you in trouble. Out of the editors involved in that situation, only VM followed our policies to the letter: one revert + discussion is not only allowed, it is recommended (WP:BRD!). I believe that instead of getting sanctioned, VM should be commended for his behavior, and shown to other four as an example of how they should behave (consider this: if all four behaved like him - single revert and discussion - there would be no edit war and no AE thread...). If you sanction him, you say that in fact all reverts are bad, something that I believe would make any editing impossible. Also, please consider: if at some future point an editor would like to add or remove a name to an article, thinking back to his sanction, they will have a really serious temptation to sock - because even if they have never edited the article, and will do only a single revert, they have seen somebody in the same situation sanction for such an edit... thus I believe his sanction, if passed in the form you currently suggested, will send the wrong message to the community (respecting policies can get you in trouble, too, so why bother?) and have a counterproductive effort (encourage further policy evasion).

Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The reason why I am considering topic bans is that I believe that revert restrictions may not be enough, given how long (years!) the reverting has been going on on the same articles, and because the problem is not only edit-warring as such, it is also nationalist POV-pushing on both sides.

With respect to Volunteer Marek, what you say would be right (and I would not be considering sanctions) if his few reverts had been made in isolation. But they were not; they were part and parcel of the edit war conducted by the others, which means that he must carry at least a part of the responsibility for the edit war as a whole. In addition, I am disappointed by his continued confrontative "We are right and the others are wrong" attitude at WP:AE, which suggests that he does not understand the severity of the problem represented by nationalist battlegrounding.

But I will wait for input by other admins before making any decision.  Sandstein  06:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That the edit warring has been going for years does not mean that when we finally decide to do something about it we should use nukes. More tailored restrictions should achieve the same result, and allow editors to continue editing. If you look at edits by Lokyz and Jacurek, for example, you'll note that they only edit EE subjects. Topic banning them is not different from a full ban. And both editors have more constructive edits there that are not part of any edit war. Why prevent them from making them?

I am afraid I don't sign for the guilt by association logic. VM edits should be judged by what they were, not as some weird association with the events. The way I see it, he was following WP:BRD, and tried to add constructive and policy-guided input to the conflict. To penalize him for following policies sends a very wrong message. Further, which policy says that making 1 revert can get you into a restriction? WP:EW clearly states that the editor needs to make repetitive reverts to be considered part of an edit war. You were always very respectful of clearly following the policies, please consider the situation here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If editors edit only EE subjects, they do so by choice. Their personal choice of topics is not relevant for determining what sanctions are needed to stop disruption of the project. After a certain number of topic-related problems, sanctions that are specifically tailored to previous misconduct are no longer enough to prevent continued disruption, and the editor needs to removed from the topic entirely. This is particularly so if the actions for which they are sanctioned were attempts to promote a particular nationalist point of view, because this makes it very likely that they have also tried to push that POV via their other edits, and would continue to try and do so if they were continued to allow articles related to the topic.

With respect to guilt by association, I cannot follow you when you say that "WP:EW clearly states that the editor needs to make repetitive reverts to be considered part of an edit war". I cannot find such a statement anywhere on that page. What WP:EW says is:

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. ...

A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."

This means that an edit war is the whole series of reverts, and all editors who make one or more of these reverts (except for the first revert, which is the only one covered by WP:BRD), are taking part in the edit war and share responsibility for it. Even if they make only one revert, that one revert contributes to making the edit war go on, disrupting consensus-based dispute resolution. We can, however (and I do in my proposed sanctions) take account of how many reverts each editor contributed to the edit war when determining sanctions.  Sandstein  17:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

With regards to editing topics of choice, you are of course right it is a choice. But my point was that 1RR restrictions should be sufficient to stabilize the area. Topic bans will achieve nothing further that's constructive, instead they will hurt the project by denying it the otherwise constructive, non-edit warring edits those editors might have done.

I see now where we differ. I was under the impression that edit warring required one to make more than one edit to an article (I will ask for clarification on talk of WP:EW) and that 1RR/BDR allowed an editor one edit, no matter if there was (or wasn't) an edit war ongoing. For the second point, however, please note that BRD specifically suggests that it should be used (that I understand implies making a revert and then discussing) in cases where "Two factions are engaged in an edit war" and "Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached", which I think fits the situation. You also said yourself that "WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert" - which is the case of VM edits under discussion. Does it mean that you state that VM followed BRD correctly but nonetheless is still guilty of violating EW?

After your explanations, I understand your concerns better. I still think that there is no need to sanction VM. Punishing an editor for a single, non-repetitive edit rests, I think, on quite a slippery grounds, and BRD seems to explicitly allow editors to intervene in an edit war with a revert and a discussion, to make their position visible. Single reverts are not disruptive, repetitive ones are, after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One should keep in mind that WP:BRD is an essay and as such has very little weight for determining whether the edit-warring policy was violated or not. When I said that WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert, I meant a single revert in total, not a single revert per editor. What WP:EW seeks to prevent are the edit-wars themselves, not reverts per editor; and an edit-war that consists of 30 editors each reverting once is just as disruptive to consensus-finding as two editors reverting 15 times each. (The only difference is that in the latter case, the responsibility for the edit war is distributed among only two editors rather than 30, so the sanctions for the two will tend to be higher than the sanctions for each of the 30.)  Sandstein  17:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, your opinion that "BRD seems to explicitly allow editors to intervene in an edit war with a revert and a discussion" appears questionable to me given that the essay advises:

"Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring", and

"Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves", and

"Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D"."  Sandstein  17:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But it does include the first R :) Anyway, I had more time to look at four diffs by VM. This one is from mid-2010 - isn't it very, very stale? This, has a very informative edit summary, noting that the editor has not replied to question raised on talk for months, and was followed by another talk post. Seems quite reasonable and constructive to me, and the revert with edit summary directing the editor to talk is quite necessary, in light of them ignoring the past discussion there. Ditto for this, even if the period is 3 days. If an editor is ignoring talk discussion, a main-body edit asking him to stop warring and start discussing is an effective tactic, more liley to work that anything else I can think of (that they can keep on ignoring as not interfering with "their version"). By arguing that those edits are bad, you are going to make solving such a situation much more difficult in the future.

Lastly, I want to ask for an advice for my own future editing. If I see an editor adding/removing a name, revert him and I am reverted back (or if I add/remove a name and am reverted), or if I see other editors with a situation when there are 3+ reverts total, does it mean I should report them to AE for sanctions? Because I see no other way of dealing with the problem, if you will sanction VM. (I am assuming that talk discussions will not be very successful, as they have not been in the past). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits at issue in the AE request should be discussed at AE. With respect to your request for advice, you have other options than making an AE request in a situation where a revert by you is reverted back. These options are detailed at WP:DR. You should not assume beforehand that discussion won't work. And I can't imagine a situation where the other editor would be sanctioned at AE for a single revert of your revert, made in isolation. Reverts are problematic if they are part of a long chain of reverts by the same or other editors (i.e., an edit war), not when they occur in isolation.  Sandstein  18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not planning on reporting anything, as I don't believe it would be justified on such a flimsy ground as one revert in an article. I am however afraid that I may be reported for a single revert in an article, in which some other editors have been edit warring. The usual procedure in such cases, in my understanding, comprises of raising the issue on talk, with the optional but not-penalized single revert allowed per WP:BRD and the assumption (you question) that a single revert (1RR) is not edit warring. With your challenge to that assumption, you are essentially preventing anybody from making a third revert to the article, giving an unchallengeable primacy to editor who made the second edit, because as talk discussions are apparently not a factor in AE, anybody who will make the third edit can be (like VM) now reported for edit warring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Making a single revert that is the second revert is not edit warring. Making a single revert that is the third revert is probably not edit warring. Making a single revert that is the fourth revert may be edit warring. Making a single revert that is the fifth revert (as here, one of the edits cited at AE) is likely edit warring. Making a single revert that is the sixth revert is almost certainly edit-warring. You see what I mean? As the chain of reverts gets longer, the more clearly we are in an edit war situation, and the risk of being sanctioned for even one (additional) revert increases. I don't try to come up with a general rule stating that after x number of reverts any additional revert is sanctionable edit-warring, though. This is both so as not to enable gaming of the system (giving any particular editor "the last word", as you fear), and because several factors have to be taken into account, such as the timing of the reverts, the amount of content reverted, and any mitigating or aggravating factors (including, here, that similar reverts were made across several articles).  Sandstein  19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that those "several factors" are not clearly defined. For example, it seems that we disagree on mitigating factors such as starting/participating in talk discussion and constructive use of edit summaries, which I and others pointed to and you didn't include (or in case of Jacurek, standing on more than one side of the proverbial barricade, and making edits in support of various national/ethnic groups, not just one). You see making 2-3 edits in a similar timeframe (on 2-3 articles) as aggreviating. I see that as insignificant, and combined with constructive discussion, as actually more constructive then not (editor became insterested in a similar series of edits and consequently made a revert and a discussion post to each article in question). Further, I see making no more then 1 revert, with a good edit summary plus a discussion post as commendable instead of sanctionable. Because of that, I prefer a simple rule, which stems from BRD and 1RR, and gives each user a "free ticket" for 1 revert, with the usual provisions that if users are seen as gaming the system (there are indications of coordinated edit warring, or they are consistently reverting without participating in discussion, thus acting as meatpuppets), they can be warned and then restricted. My solution is simpler (no need for detailed review of marginal participants and consequent muddying the water - note that this discussion is mostly about an editor whose involvement and sanctioning is borderline, not about the rest of the editors who were clearly and undeniably edit warring) and it assumes more good faith for editors, unless they consistently abuse their BRD/1RR privilege in a disruptive fashion (which obviously is not the case with VM). Here I will also note that you have not warned VM that his actions may be seen as EW (an interpretation of EW that has clearly proven controversial, as several editors have pointed out so far); this entire case could have been - can still be - silenced if you were just to warn him to be more careful, not sanction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, simple mathematical rules are too easily gameable. Uncertainty is an effective deterrent. For instance, with your "free ticket" for one revert, the side with more editors (who can all make one revert each) always "wins" the edit war and so has no incentive to engage in discussion. It is easier to remember the following: If you are editing topics subject to discretionary sanctions, and come to a dispute in which there has already been much reverting, do not make even one additional revert. Otherwise you risk sanctions. Unfair, perhaps, in your opinion, but effective as a means to disincentivize ideologically polarized edit wars. I think we will have to agree to disagree in this matter.  Sandstein  20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly. I will note that your current version does support the side with more editors, as they can take more "casualties". It will also encourage more battleground mentality, as editors will try to game the system and report 3+ reverts to AE. Which may lead to reporters getting sanctioned, sure, but so what? The side with more editors will still win, as again, they can afford to test the boundaries more. Whereas in my system, a side with more editors can still be penalized, as a case can be made about coordinated reverting. Although if there is no edit war and there is discussion, the chances are much higher that cooler, more reasonable editors are involved (particularly in discussion) then in your solution, where battleground mentality is high, more neutral editors are afraid to edit involved articles (where their comments are ignored and making a revert lands them in the penalty box along with the really disruptive warriors), and thus the affected articles became the domain of warring nationalist warriors. "Nuke them all and call the desert peace" is not the best solution when your final goal goes beyond peace (like, for example, in the case when you actually want to create content-filled encyclopedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, your comment that I does not understand the severity of the problem represented by nationalist battlegrounding. is bad faithed and untrue. I take the issue of the disruptive nature of nationalist battlegrounds very seriously. Your assertion is not supported by any kind of evidence nor is it logically sound. Simply, this conclusion that you made up does not follow from the premise - as it is I do in fact think that some people here were "more right" than others in that they were following policy as outlined at WP:NCGN, while others were purposefully ignoring the said policy. It pretty much IS editors on one side of the dispute who made this into a battleground - witness the fact that a similar battleground DOES NOT occur with respect to German names in Polish places, as exemplified by Herkus' edits. But just because I think the blame lies disproportionately with one side, doesn't mean I "don't care about nationalist battlegrounds" or whatever. I'd ask you to strike that accusation but I know there's no point to such a request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These options are detailed at WP:DR. You should not assume beforehand that discussion won't work. - the options detailed at WP:DR include starting a discussion talk page and asking for a third opinion. This is exactly what I did here. Obviously, using DR procedures is not enough to avoid getting AE sanctions from you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sandstein. As I generally get along with both Polish and Lithuanian editors, am well versed in the history of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth et al., and have been able to help out in the past, I would be willing to act as an arbitrator if involved editors are willing to present their case on place names—this more than likely means on an article by article basis—and accept whatever I suggest is editorially appropriate. We could reconvene and discuss naming decisions, say, in 6 months to see if we have a consensus as to whether things have improved. All we are seeing here is the entirely predictable fallout from the inimical 20th century Poland-Lithuania relationship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to try to mediate the naming content disputes, but nobody is bound to accept either your mediation or your suggestions of what is editorially appropriate. Wikipedia works on the consensus model and has no authoritative content dispute resolution framework.  Sandstein  19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein: Making a single revert that is the fifth revert (as here, one of the edits cited at AE) is likely edit warring. - first, that was not the fifth revert, please count again. There was one revert by Jacurek and two by Lokyz previously. Second, that edit came 4 days after I initiated talk page discussion and Lokyz failed to respond - hence, I felt justified in making it. Third, as soon as Lokyz reverted me - within two hours, despite the fact that he didn't even bother replying on talk in the previous 4 days - I ceased making any further edits to the article and asked for a third opinion instead. I'm sorry but there is no way that my actions here are "edit warring". They follow policy and DR to a letter. You yourself, when asked to consider content disputes, usually tell editors involved to go to WP:DR. That is exactly what I did here. Yet... you're holding that against me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Question at EW

I asked a question and cited you here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Selphyl

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Time

I placed my requests [10] on March 16 at 20:42 , you closed the case on March 17 at 07:10 which is 10 hours after. Do you really think it was enough time? Please check the history because my name stamp there does not indicate the correct time.--Jacurek (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice that the timestamp of your message was incorrect. Nonetheless, for the reasons explained at WP:AN, this does not lead me to reconsider my decision.  Sandstein  09:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (geographic names)

Hey Sandstain, with my sanctions [11] is this still ok to comment here [12] if in my comment I don't mention E.Europe anywhere? Let me know thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle, yes, although if the discussion focuses on EE examples, a violation of the topic ban becomes harder to avoid.  Sandstein  05:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks, I will be careful.--Jacurek (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of words and thinking and IAR

This is possibly none of my business, and I am kind of new and without the wisdom of hindsight, but there are a whole lot of words and thinking that went into the “QG/L2 meta-meta- … meta-discussions”. Wouldn’t they have been better spent writing articles, instead of meta-stasizing? There doesn’t seem to be a “forgive and forget” policy of the stature of IAR, but perhaps a corollary of IAR is to do so, because it will improve WP. I am putting this comment here because it seems like you were the one who escalated to the last meta- , and perhaps you might want to reconcile rather than “win”, even if you may be right. (Note that I was recently threatened by L2, and called some pretty bad names and had nonAGF accusations made against me, so I am not here to defend that kind of thing in any way, just to point out how much time everyone seems to spend bickering and escalating the bickering.) PPdd (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that time would thave been better spent writing articles, but so would have the time spent writing practically anything in Wikipedia: space. The fact is, there sometimes are conduct disputes on Wikipedia, and they have to be addressed and resolved, or at least ended, or even less articles will be written.  Sandstein  05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, though I disagree with this particular block's execution, it is indeed sometimes better to have the arguments in DisputeSpace rather than ArticleSpace. Ocaasi (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

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

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI

Hello Sandstein,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Surprise

Sandstein, concerning this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Dan&action=history matter, was I notified by you, or any other administrator, regarding any proceeding that might result in a ban, without any opportunity to make a statement or defend myself? Was unaware of it. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Novickas left you this [13] but you are right, you should have been properly notified.--Jacurek (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jacurek, but I'm not at your talk page. So again, Sandstein, concerning this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Dan&action=history matter, was I notified by you, or any other administrator, regarding any proceeding that might result in a ban, without any opportunity to make a statement or defend myself? Was unaware of it. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You were notified by Novickas, as mentioned by Jacurek above, which is, I believe, sufficient.  Sandstein  05:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, Novickas is not an administrator. Nor does she have any authority to block me. Is something to the effect of "you are being talked about", from a regular editor, considered a formal notification? Now that I've read all of it, it seems to have been an AE brought against Jacurek. I believe you stated at this latest AE that if there were some problems concerning other editors, an AE should be filed against them. I assume that if that had happened, and a proceeding had been filed against me, I would have been notified. So, I was blocked after the fact, by you, without your making any attempt to notify me and allow me to challenge any evidence which may have affected the outcome? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Novickas' notification was sufficient to give you an opportunity to defend yourself. If you disagree, you are free to appeal the sanction imposed against you.  Sandstein  14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that in your opinion, your belief that Novickas' "notification" was sufficient to justify your actions against me. Be that as it may, after clicking on to his/her notification, I saw this was an AE concerning Jacurek, not me. Consequently, following Thacher's earlier poignant observation "one has to to be nuts" (or something to that effect), to get involved in these squabbles, I ignored it completely. No need, in my opinion, to respond. No desire to respond either. To what purpose? To read the same nonsense from the same people over again? No one brought an AE against me. So I didn't want to get involved. Subsequently, you brought me in to the fray, made some pretty wild interpretations and errors regarding my edits, failed to notify me of your intentions to block me, and then did so. I understand what I am free to do concerning appealing this very controversial behavior on your part. Perhaps the Wikipedia community needs to also look into how the system operates. Unless a specific AE is brought against me concerning this matter, I would ask you to consider reverting the sanctions against me. If a formal AE should come to pass and normal procedures (like notification) allowing me to respond and defend myself are permitted, we can proceed with discussing my editing. Meanwhile, that last thing that I should hope at this time would be that the Wikipedia Community should lose faith in your impartiality and make comparisons to you to "Inspector Javert" or Vyshinsky. Hoping the reference to Vyshinsky doesn't violate my ban regarding Eastern Europe (and Germany). Dr. Dan (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The notification read: "Notice: Your name is mentioned, and your editing is being discussed, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement". This made it sufficiently clear that your own editing was under discussion. For this reason, I decline to undo my enforcement action.  Sandstein  06:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

clarification, at least

While I'm deciding whether to waste my time filing an appeal of your sanction which will get mindlessly turned down as a matter of routine, can you at least clarify the sanction for me?

First, I'm assuming I am still free to comment and discuss naming on article talk pages. This does not appear to be prohibited in the wording and such a prohibition would fly in the face of what this is (misguidedly) suppose to accomplish.

Yes, talk pages are unaffected.  Sandstein  06:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Second, and more importantly, the wording now implies that if, say, someone put the phrase "Poznań is a gay city" into the article on Poznań, I would be in breach of the sanction were I to remove it, since removing the phrase would mean removing the name "Poznań" since the article already has the German name "Posen" sprinkled through out it. Is that correct? That's a bit of an extreme example, but I am wondering if just in course of normal article editing were I too remove a particular name of a city that has some other name it (and by now, almost every article on a Polish city, or almost any article related to Polish history has a bunch of "alternative names" in it) as part of general article clean up or a rewrite, someone would drag me to AE again. What am I supposed to do in such circumstances? Change it to "Poznań is a jolly city"? Take out the "gay" part and just leave the word "Poznań" as some kind of placeholder in by itself to avoid violating this ridiculous sanction?

Removing clear vandalism is not prohibited by limited bans, see WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans. You could therefore revert the "Poznań is a gay city". If in doubt, it may be better to call the problem to the attention of others.  Sandstein  06:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Or suppose that I wanted to expand the article on Częstochowa to include information about the Częstochowa Ghetto during WWII. Since adding in the phrase "Częstochowa Ghetto" would be like adding in the name "Częstochowa" to an article that also has the German name "Tschenstochau" and Russian "Ченстохов" that would apparently also be a breach of this sanction. Was this kind of onerous restriction intentional here?

You are right, that would be prohibited under the current wording, but would make no sense. I clarify, therefore, that the restriction does not prohibit uncontroversially adding names to the article that are already in use in the article. (By uncontroversially, I mean in a manner that cannot be construed as nationalistically motivated, as in your example. Using "Gdansk" in a context where the city is referred to as "Danzig", or vice versa, for example, would not be uncontroversial.)  Sandstein  06:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. On this one, what about articles - and there are too many of these - which almost arbitrarily switch between two names throughout the text. Is it sufficient to just follow naming guidelines here when "adding"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you should only use the name that is used as the article title for the respective subject, or, if that could be controversial under the circumstances (such as using "Gdansk" in a context where users might expect to see "Danzig"), avoid making such changes altogether. The problem with these naming guidelines is that they require editorial judgment, which makes their application subject to dispute, as in some of the cases that led to your sanction.  Sandstein  07:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a reasonable suggestion for a lot of cases, though there are still a ton of articles that it won't help with (what's the applicable article title to use in the Kresy article?). I think your second sentence points to the problem with the sanction itself, as well as the relevant naming guideline, not with anything I've done. Anyway, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I could sort of, maybe, perhaps, just, a little bit, understand the restriction if it was limited to the lede of articles or first sentence or something. Of course even the restriction would be unfair and unjustified, but at least it would have been well thought out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That would not suffice for the purpose of the restriction, as there are cities that are referred to by different names according to the historical context, such as Gdansk/Danzig, and changing these names to the other one would give rise to the same kind of problem that the restriction was designed to prevent.  Sandstein  06:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, one more point of clarification. I'm assuming that creating (new) redirects is not covered by the sanction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes.  Sandstein  21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

AE

About the disputes and btw could you please wait until the afternoon for the Yanya Vilayet assessment, because I haven't replied yet?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I am done with reviewing the evidence now.  Sandstein  21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I had mentioned you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

I hope you didn't see my comment in the workshop as an exercise in "Sandstein bashing". I think you have a tendency to adhere very rigidly to "The Book", which isn't always a good thing, I have great admiration for the work you do and have done at AE. It's not an easy area to work in and you seem to handle the toxicity better than most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think of it as bashing, but thanks for the message. I think we just disagree about some aspects of relevant policy; in particular about what "discretionary" means. I am by the book, because, well, that's who I am. It works for the purpose of AE; at least it's predictable. And I have a near-zero capacity for empathizing with people who break clear and common-sense rules such as, do not swear at each other, ever. That may be a deficiency for some purposes, but I prefer to think of it as an asset at AE.  Sandstein  21:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi, You summed up here, but you left out how long this ban is for. Blackash have a chat 12:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is of indefinite duration, that is, it lasts until the Community or the Arbitration Committee lifts it.  Sandstein  12:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fictional coaches

About four years ago, there was a collection of deletion discussions on lists of fictional characters. Most of the articles survived, but you closed List of coaches in fiction as a Delete. I'd like to address the issues and revive the article, but it is not clear to me what was special about this one article that led to its deletion, except perhaps that some of the 'Keep' voters missed this one and so their arguments were not taken into account, or that the article title was unclear, per the last poster. I'd appreciate your clarification. Ma^t_chups 19:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, AfD is not a vote, so we do not talk of "voters". We look whether there is consensus to delete, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of coaches in fiction I apparently (long time ago, so I don't remember) found that there was such a consensus. I assume that I discounted the two "Speedy close, no rationale" because it turns out that there was a rationale for deletion, so these opinions became inapplicable.  Sandstein  20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have written "commentors," not "voters." Given that there doesn't seem to be a specific reason identified in the discussion to delete this article, I am going to assume it was something in the content, which should be fixable. Would you be able to restore the article into my userspace, or temporarily into article space for me to copy, so that I can clean it up and hopefully avoid AFD this time? Ma^t_chups 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the entire unsourced content is:

"This is a list of fictional coaches.

• Coach Ernie Pantusso, from the television series Cheers
• Coach Oleander, from the video game Psychonauts
• Coach Quintero, from the Nickelodeon television series Romeo!"

Pretty useless, IMHO, so I recommend that you start from scratch if you want to write an article about this topic.  Sandstein  22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it's not much of an article as it was, but I might well have missed these, so it's still good info. Ma^t_chups 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Old "friend" Marquis de la Eirron

I know you have had dealings with banned sockmaster Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs). He is back using one of his old IP addresses, making the same sorts of unsourced changes that he did before to the exact same articles. Is there an easy way to deal with this? See 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs). Kind regards. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I am using my IP adress is because my ban has ended and I thought that I was allowed to edit once the suspension has gone?? Simple Bob says that I am making "unsourced" edits as usual but the edits that I have made to an article refer to the person being either Jewish or an ethnic minority and i'm hardly going to make up a lie that someone is Jewish when they are not, and it says on all of these peoples wiki pages that they are Jewish so the source is on the page. 81.110.220.68 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

He just got another 6 month block so no need for action on your part. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking my account please

Due to the arguement above I was wondering if you could please unblock my Marquis de la Eirron account so that I am able to edit legitimatly as atm I make an edit which is clearly right yet it gets reverted because I stupidly did sockpuppetry months ago for which I was suspended and I have learnt my lesson and so I am only trying to clear up mistakes on wikipedia but I keep having my edits reversed by Simple Bob who says that due to me having been a sockpuppet means I cannot edit and then claims that I have no sources yet surely the fact that it says so on a wiki page is a good enough source?? So please could I have my account unblocked to prove to you that I can be a great asset to the wiki community and not a hinderance with my edits! 81.110.220.68 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you explain this edit? Why did another editor revert all these edits? It looks like you have learned absolutely nothing from your time away from Wikipedia and continue to be disruptive and see absolutely no fault in your actions. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To be entirely fair (I'm not sure why, as the other edits look inappropriate), I reverted the UK election edits as I saw this diff appear in my watchlist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the original question, block evasion is never allowed. You need to appeal your block or ban with your original account, and if that talk page is blocked, e-mail WP:BASC.  Sandstein  22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As a courtesy, I wanted to mention that I quoted you in an AN/I here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Huda Ben Amer

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

I find the topic ban decision extremely clownish and poorly thought out for reasons explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tree_shaping#Topic_ban

The proper course of action would be to ban them from any edits (mainspace or talkspace) related to the name. However, I understand that you are simply reflecting the community so I don't really blame you. AfD hero (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeal

I filed the paperwork [14].Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So...

... on the article on Władysław Syrokomla, User:M.K and User:Egisz have been edit warring (perhaps mildly) with some IPs. M.K's edits are not based on any sources. Three days ago I posted to the talk page of the article [15] where I listed over 15 sources to back myself up. I plan on undoing this edit of M.K's [16] based on these 15+ sources (I can find another 15 if need be...) and on the fact that there has been no reply on the talk page from anyone involved for three days. This would be my first ever edit to the article, and it does not fall under the naming sanction you've imposed.

However, this situation is pretty similar to the one at Vilnius University, where I also initiated discussion, the discussion was ignored, hence I made a single edit three days later, and that became one of the (two) instances that you accused me of "edit warring" in. So I want to know if making this particular edit is also going to be seen as "edit warring" - though I'm following WP:DR to the letter. Just trying to cover my butt here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that you asked rather than reverting outright...

I find edit-wars about this sort of stuff profoundly disgusting and unworthy of encyclopedists, based as it is on a sort of "my nation is better than yours because it has this great artist!" approach completely at odds with our basic mission. This war seems to have been going on for years. There appear to have been a zillion reverts about this guy's nationality already, so if you were to make another one, and anybody took this to AE, I'd have to block you as well as most other recent editors of this page for continuing a long-term edit-war. Remember, how right you are, or how many sources you have, or how many talk page comments you have made, or whether others have also misbehaved, does not matter. WP:EW does not care about any of this. It just wants people to stop reverting and start talking.

So I recommend that you do it the hard way. Start a WP:RFC on the talk page. Make a statement to the effect that this guy should be described as whatever based on the sources you found. After 30 days, ask for an admin to close the discussion and to determine consensus. Then, and only then, would I consider any edit that changes the article in accordance with the RFC consensus not to be edit-warring.

As an admin, I can't make a ruling on content issues and tell you "your sources look fine, go ahead and revert". I can only issue some edit-warring and WP:DIGWUREN warnings to all recently involved editors, so that they know (as you do now) that blocking might ensue if the reverting continues.  Sandstein  22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will start an RfC. But a couple of points. First, I believe that WP:EW does in fact care whether or not somebody is discussing the issue on talk, per WP:DR. Of course that's not a sufficient condition for "not edit warring" but it is a factor. In fact WP:EW has an explicit section on the matter [17] which is what I usually try to follow (here as well as on the Vilnius University and Bernardine Cemetery articles). Second, while this may seem "lame" to many, the fact is that whole lot of people care about this stuff, books are written on these subjects, and pretty much in any history book the introduction is usually precisely about this kind of stuff (which shows that professional historians tend to take these kinds of issues far more seriously) and if you're gonna have it in an encyclopedia, it SHOULD be based on sources. Turning away in disgust just lets less scrupulous editors to get their way. Third, while doing it "the hard way" is often the way to go, there's simply way too many articles and disputes of this nature on Wikipedia and doing an RfC on each of them would be a tremendous waste of editor time and resources. Just saying. Thanks for the recommendation though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, talking and making only a single revert is much better than blindly reverting, but after dozens of reverts, even a single revert is one too many. No objection to your second point, although there are many more important things to be said about people than an often somewhat arbitrary assignment to an often not very clearly defined "nation". With respect to your last point, it's normally less of a waste than the energy expended in edit-warring and administrating the resulting drama.  Sandstein  22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Władysław Syrokomla looks to be an excellent test of the abilities of editors with two different ethnic interests to work out a compromise article. I assume that one side of this dispute can read Polish sources, and the other side can read Lithuanian sources. He is buried in Rasos cemetery, and our article on that cemetery says, "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lithuanian and Polish authorities collaborated in an effort to restore the cemetery." Why should the two countries want to work together? Doesn't that hint at some overlap of ethnic identities for the people in the cemetery? This man could have a hybrid nationality for all we know, and the article is very weakly sourced. We do have an article called Polish-Lithuanian (adjective). It's hard to see why placing the stamp of ethnic ownership on the clearly-Polish or clearly-Lithuanian poet Syrokomla is a rational activity. We do have an article on Nicolaus Copernicus which manages to say where he was born without giving him a nationality. Perhaps this article needs an unusual discretionary sanction that says, nobody can add an ethnic claim to this article without also providing a source, and stating what that implies specifically about his ethnicity. For example, did he only write works in Polish? Who can source that? Did he speak Lithuanian? Who can source that? The list of his works includes no citation templates and we don't have ISBNs or anything with which to look them up in libraries. The source link added by M.K. does not work. There are no other sources actually in the article. At Talk:Władysław_Syrokomla Volunteer Marek has listed some books but it would be even better if he could develop some of the material from these books and add it to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Link added by me works just fine, it is in webarchive so loading may take time. M.K. (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. It's depressing to see how much energy has been expended for claiming the guy for one or the other nation, and how little for writing a halfway decent article.  Sandstein  23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Ed here. However, the details (For example, did he only write works in Polish? - mostly, he tried his hand at writing a few a few short pieces in Belarussian, none in Lithuanian, Who can source that? - I already did, on the talk page, Did he speak Lithuanian? - no) should be taken to the article's talk page rather than here. Short answer is that in virtually all sources he is called "Polish", even (or especially) by Lithuanian writers like Tomas Venclova. If we want to be multicultural and get a bit ORish, then Belarussian-Polish makes a lot more sense than "Polish-Lithuanian" ("Lithuanian" by itself is not found in any sources). If we're looking for an article where Polish and Lithuanian editors could demonstrate their willingness to cooperate there's probably better examples, like Laurynas Gucevičius (same problems).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I regard this user: Volunteer Marek complain as continuing campaign to damage my reputation. This editor claim: “M.K's edits are not based on any sources“ is this completely false – I am perhaps the only one editor who introduced sources to this page, including the source for the subjects’ ethnicity. While Volunteer Marek made ZERO edits in the main space so far yet he is making complains, this reminds me behavior which I reported previously.

Now, regarding so called edit war – this, and this and similar edits made by IP is a clear form of vandalism, and reverting vandalism is not a revert war, more: the same article was protected (by MY request) due to excessive use of socks by that notorious IP . Yet for this I got that notorious threat for blocking me! Great!

Finally, is it not curious that IP removes sources about nationality [18] and Volunteer Marek rushed here with “complains “ about edit warring and “edits which are not based on any sources”? M.K. (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You just changed one of your diff links [19] so that now it suggests that I am socking as User:89.200.212.143, is that right? (Ignore rest)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Which one?, now placed correct diff .... M.K. (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to address these statements on the article's talk page - that's why I tried to initiate discussion there in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So why are you stalking me all around? and why are you in tune with notorious Australian sock IP, which you so vigorously defended in the past. I have to admit that this Australian IP issue is not isolated issue one, there were much more socks, which of course tried to stalk me and provoke me, yet the main masters accounts are still at large. WP:EEML is full of "how to" recruit anonymous socks for slaking their opponents. And it seems nobody cares here about that. M.K. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you (Sandstein or EdJ) be willing to mediate at the article? Or talk some other people into participating? Yes, this might mean you'd feel that you couldn't do sanctions for that article; do you feel you'd then be inhibited from all related sanctions, leaving AE in the lurch? Because we are in dire need of outside views that could suggest compromises at these sorts of articles, involving complex national and ethnic identifications, and talk people down before the edit wars get ugly. Novickas (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls Adam Mickiewicz the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to you latter (I am extremely busy, and instead for spending my limited free time to improving article, I have to defend my good name as certain activists cant stop following me and reporting me) , but plz look more detail in the article there that link was placed. M.K. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed, again, this belongs on the article's talk page. Why are we having this conversation here? Cambridge History of Poland calls Adam Mickiewicz, "supreme singer of Lithuania", not Kondratewicz, who we are discussing (he was influenced by Mickiewicz). There is also the issue - which is sort of fundamental to a lot of these disputes - that Poles who lived in Lithuanian used to (and still do) call themselves "Lithuanian" ("Litwini") as well, but that doesn't meant they were "Lithuanian" in the modern sense or in a linguistic sense or in any sense except for that they felt an attachment to the place where they were born. Same true for a lot of Belarussians actually. It's sort of like calling Montezuma a "Mexican" just because he was a Mexica.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

VM has now opened a Request for Comment at Talk:Władysław Syrokomla#RfC: How should Kondratowicz's ethnicity be described in the article. This is a good way to handle the dispute. For best results, request an uninvolved admin to close the RfC when it comes time. What do editors think is reasonable for publicizing the RfC? Would it be sensible to post a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard? There don't seem to be any WikiProjects in EE that are currently active, except for WP:POLAND. There is also a WT:BALTIC, but with no posts since 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A good way in theory, in practice one sees mostly the usual suspects. How to get outsiders, I don't know. Threaded, disorganized insider argumentation drives people away. Novickas (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a small modification for my above post, regarding WikiProjects that could be active in Eastern Europe. I notice that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania which is not entirely inactive, since there are some talk posts in the last three months. I guess we could justify notifying both WP:POLAND and WP:LITH of some of these controversies about the ethnic identity of 19th-century literary figures who seem to be both Polish and Lithuanian. If there is a discussion, and people appear to be !voting along ethnic lines, there would have to be some rationale for whether the greater number of editors associated with WP:POLAND should be allowed for. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished significantly expanding Władysław Syrokomla. I would like to restore the word Polish to the lead, backed by several reliable and verifiable citations (previously, this word was not backed up by citations). Would doing so be ok? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you wait until the RFC concludes (if it concludes with a consensus to use the "Polish" designation), or otherwise you are continuing the edit war.  Sandstein  19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So where did the R from BRD went? And just to be sure, how long should I wait after the last comment on talk, and how to determine consensus, percentage-wise? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The R has already been used up with the first nationality-related revert on this article. RFCs last for 30 days, and then you should ask for an uninvolved admin at WP:AN to determine consensus.  Sandstein  20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How long does it take for the R to "refresh"? Or are you saying that if somebody made a nationality revert in 2001, and an editor makes a revert in 2011, he is revert warring? Also, are you saying that the article, with an uncited fringe claim, should stay as it is even if an editor has a better, cited version ready to fix the problem (and the other party is not even participating on talk)? If so, I am afraid your attitude towards reverts is starting to hurt both editors and articles, and empowers disruptive editors (go, revert an article, it stays in their version for at least a month, and if somebody reverts them - gotcha, report them for edit warring...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends. If the article has been productively edited for years since the last nationality-related revert, the "R" is refreshed, so to speak, because another revert would not continue an edit war. But if there have been many relatively recent reverts, another revert is likely to be seen as continuing the edit war. Also, two reverts do not make an edit war, but after four, five or so we are looking at one.  Sandstein  20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Roughly, I agree with that. What I don't agree is that one has to wait over a month to make a (partial) revert, even if the revert would be replacing unreferenced claim with a referenced one, and the other party is not active (or not constructive) on talk. I will wait to see if references are provided for the cite request I added, but I see no reason why reinstating referenced nationality claim right now would be less than constructive. I am fine with keeping the other claim in the article, with the appended cite needed template. Please note that the past edits have replaced one with another, without any references, thus my proposed edit is of a different type (keep both, request citations for one - already done, and add citations to the other one). Of course, after several days if citation is not provided, the remaining claim would be eligible for removal per WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Would it be possible for you to review and provide your opinion on the editing of Pensionero. He has recently been banned due to edit war and now he has come back with a vengance. His current nature of editing articles is not in line with Wikipedia etiquette and will only result in an edit war particularly in the articles Ponmaks, Bulgarisation and Islam in Bulgaria. You attention and advise is appreciated. REF: User_talk:Pensionero#Tendentious_editing . Hittit (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the edits you think are problematic, and explain why they are problematic.  Sandstein  16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Turkey: Pensionero intentionally abuses the source that claims 300 000 people in Turkey speak Bulgarian. This number relates to Turks from Bulgaria. The source does not say these are Pomaks who sepak Bulgarian. Clearly has been warned about this but still has made the change and clearly stating something that is not confirmed by the source. Furthemore the ethnic classification of Pomaks and their origin is one of the most contentest issue in the Balkans. He has removed this statement. He has not attempted to justify his changes in the talk page first.

Islam in Bulgaria: Pensionero has altered article text by insterting unsourced phrases such as "Very small number of Muslims", "insignificantly Islamic influences", "Islam is the largest minority religion". These type of single edits resemble very mich the definition for "Tendentious editing" and "disruptive editing". This clearly does not contribute in any way for development of this article, but is a calling card for an edit war.

Bulgarisation: Bulgariasation and forced assimilation in Bulgaria are well documented events, stating that the Pomaks were not forcefully Bulgarised by forcefully denying their religion and Islamic culture is unsourced. The comment in the talk page that forceful conversion to the Orthodox religion is not Bulgariasation is in not in any way sufficient to justify tendetions editing. Hittit (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I need diffs of this. Please see WP:DIFF. But at first glance the two last points sound like the description of a content dispute, which I can't adjudicate. See WP:DR for how to proceed.  Sandstein  17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He has now broken the 3RR rule after being engaged in an edit war in the articles Pomaks and Bulgarians in Turkey. He had been previously warned on his talk page on his behaviour. See evidence 1 and evidence 2Hittit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

These URLs seem to be broken. I recommend that you use WP:AN3, that's what it's for.  Sandstein  17:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein. Here's an image I took. This is a front cover of the book with my image. Am I allowed to upload an image of this cover to wikipedia? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question (and very cool photograph, by the way). I would assume that yes, given that it's a derivative work of a CC-BY-SA photo, and adherence to that license is a requirement for the use of the image on the cover. But don't take my word for it. Instead, I recommend that you ask for the opinion of experts at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing.  Sandstein  06:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ae appeal

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

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

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)

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)

While we're here, can you take a look at this user's edits [20]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi

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

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

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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?

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. The third edit was self-reverted by myself three minutes later. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
4. The fourth edit self-reverts myself. Does this have anything to do with edit war?
5. 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?
6. 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)

You made three reverts:

• Reverting removal of the "Mythology" section
• Reverting the removal again
• Reverting the removal again

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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):

1. 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).

1. 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CC

Do you understand what you might have done incorrectly with the AE closed?[21]Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy that to Talk:Selphyl and reply there.  Sandstein  22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war page 'malformed report'

I was aware that my request was a little bit outside a typical report when I filed it, however, I am trying to address a behavior that seems to want to steamroll other editors without community participation. Mr. Norton typically makes dozens or hundreds of edits per day, and from time to time, other editors have disputed those changes, modified them, asked for Talk page/community involvement, and the pattern that I have seen develop is one where Mr. Norton seems to respond to these as roadblocks rather than as opportunities to positively engage others. The comments I typically have seen either trivialize the other editor, or trivialize their comments, or simply Mr. Norton fails to engage questioners at all (silence). I personally do not have a stake in this other than I feel that these kinds of behaviors don't seem to follow the community spirit, and in some cases, simply drain the community by attrition because other editors give up in the face of so much momentum by Mr. Norton.

The recent filing at 3RR was due in large part to an initial edit by Metropolitan90 here, and subsequent revert by Mr. Norton with the simple comment 'no need to remove quote'. I reverted this back, because the quotation was placed at the end of the lead paragraph and seemed to be an odd location for a quote like this. In looking over Mr. Norton's recent edit history on the article, it seems that *he* decides what should be included in the article, not others. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_diaspora&action=history

I'm at a loss to describe this fully without writing an entire book on it, to me, succinct and brief, with detail added later, is easier on others, instead of loading everyone down. -- Avanu (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, essentially, if there is an edit war there are reverts; you need to provide a list of diffs of these reverts to convince us that there is an edit war going on. If there are problems beside edit warring, WP:AN3 is the wrong forum, in this case see WP:DR.  Sandstein  06:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is not a dispute resolution forum

I also forgot to include this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&action=history It *does* take the appearance of almost edit warring, because Mr. Norton wants his new page Scandinavian diaspora because he has been pushing for the word 'diaspora' to replace the word 'migration'. My involvement in all this began after a complaint was filed at Wikiquette alerts a while back, and I have occasionally tossed in a word or two, but after a while it just seems that he doesn't really feel that community participation is all that necessary. I'll check WP:DR for options. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC) And also, here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#PROD_abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruggles_Prize Mr. Norton contested a PROD and then accused the editor who nominated it of abuse, and then left the conversation. -- Avanu (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC) This discussion seems to be going on in a bunch of places at once, I will comment here in the hope that a respected admin like Sandstein might have good suggestions. Avanu and RAN were apparently involved in a bitter dispute concerning use of the word "diaspora," a dispute that played out over multiple WP articles and pages. It is my opinion that the community finally demonstrated consensus here not to override Wikipedia's substantial past practice of following wider media use of "diaspora" as a coverall term for "people of foo origin living in not-foo." Avanu, who did not take part in that discussion, may not be aware of its outcome. Sharktopustalk 12:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) In the above quote, Sharktopus seems to both say and not say that I was involved in a previous bitter dispute with Mr. Norton. Just to be absolutely clear, I was *not* involved in the diaspora dispute. That was the first occasion I had even heard of him as an editor, and the other editors came to the Wikipedia Etiquette board requesting assistance, if I recall. -- Avanu (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC) To be honest, it might simply be coincidence, but Mr. Norton complained to 2 of his fellow editors, one of which was Sharktopus above, saying "It looks like the diaspora edit war has heated up again. Would you look at Swedish diaspora and help decide whether the quote should stay or go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )", yet when I look this morning, I find an odd comment on a very similar article, the [Norwegian diaspora] claiming that the use of 'diaspora' was previously settled in Norton and Shark's favor, and this "It seems to me, however, that the quote is oddly placed in the lead and would fit better into the section on 'Ties to the Homeland.' Sharktopus" The timing of these edits, along with the above description of us supposedly being in a 'bitter dispute' and the comments makes me think that Shark believed he was editing the article that Norton asked him to, rather than the one actually mentioned, and that they are collaborating in some fashion. -- Avanu (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Hi Avanu, my apologies, I did not check to see if you had been involved in the earlier dispute but assumed you had since I recognized your username slightly and I am a somewhat new editor with not many "familiar faces" outside the small group that writes about biology. Your objections to the article's use of the term diaspora are essentially those raised by people involved in the earlier dispute. I did see RAN's request on my talk page and looked at several related articles still on my watchlist to see if I could make a useful contribution. For the most part, it seemed to me that the disputes there were unrelated to stuff I care about pursuing. I am willing to "collaborate" with any Wikipedia editor whose ideas I agree with. I suppose RAN solicited me because I expressed a strong opinion in the discussions of what rule we should follow on using the term "diaspora." If you are suggesting some impropriety on my part, I object. I don't know RAN and am not involved in any secretive cabals of any kind. In my opinion, people who participate in such cabals are even more misguided than people who waste time trying to sniff out such cabals among editors who disagree with them. Sharktopustalk 13:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I appreciate the apology, and I feel we may be overstaying our welcome on Sandstein's Talk page. I'm not here to sniff out cabals; I'm simply interested in Mr. Norton choosing to display a higher 'esprit de corps', and his recent edits and comments prompted me to file (incorrectly, I'm told) a edit war notice regarding it. My impression of his edits is that (generally) he minimizes, trivializes, or ignores other editors, choosing instead to edit en masse on a daily basis. When asked to explain, his answers are minimal. It is not up to me alone to decide such things, so I have asked Sandstein for advice, and it has been given. -- Avanu (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

People, please take this discussion elsewhere. I was asked to act on edit-warring, and for that I need diffs, which have not been provided. If this is about something other than edit-warring, please proceed per WP:DR.  Sandstein  21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence comment

You asked here [22] for comments on your evidence. You state earlier in the page that "While not required to by the remedy or any policy, for reasons of fairness, I always ask an editor whom I am about to sanction to comment about the concerns that have been put forward about their editing. This gives them an opportunity to explain any possible misunderstanding or to undo their problematic edits and so possibly avoid the sanction altogether."

I don't think you followed this in the case of the sanctions you recently issued against users Lokyz and Dr. Dan, so perhaps you could replace 'always' with 'usually' there, or elsewise modify it. I notified these users on March 13 at about 3:00 UTC ([23], [24]) that they were being discussed at the AE noticeboard. At the time, no sanctions for them were being discussed by you or other admins.[25] I don't see any followup on your part, at their talk pages, to the effect that you were considering sanctions against them - correct me if I'm mistaken. Your reply to Dr. Dan, when he commented on this, was that "This [i.e. my message] made it sufficiently clear that your own editing was under discussion." [26]. Novickas (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, in this case you did the notifying for me, thanks. I don't think that's worth mentioning in the evidence, though.  Sandstein  21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess we are agreeing to disagree on the meaning of "I always". Novickas (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

EE namewarring sanctions

Header inserted by  Sandstein  05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing discussion before it devolves into bickering. Sanctioned users (only!) may appeal sanctions per the instructions in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions  Sandstein  05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Did you reconsider these sanctions, Sandstein, like I suggested? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I see no reason to, at least not at the request of a user who is, themselves, not affected by the sanctions.  Sandstein  23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Can Deancon of Pndapetzim also lobby for the removal of my sanctions since we all reverted at the same level? Also, unlike Lokyz and Dr.Dan I was adding names in several languages (not ONLY Lithuanian) and this fact was not even acknowledged. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you know everything

Hi Sandstein, if you have a time, may I please ask you to take a look at this thread at my talk page and state your opinion about concerns expressed by user:Balloonman? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there.  Sandstein  20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for attention

Hi,

I'd like to draw your attention to this edit and kindly ask to prevent this kind of argumentation in the discussion.

Thanks in advance, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 09:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there.  Sandstein  20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was my mistake from my side, as I am not fully familirized of all Wikipedia rules. Thank you for informing me. I would like to draw your attention to here, as I have been encountered with such claims before too. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "obscure Azeri website" is a valid objection insofar as self-published sources are not considered reliable, see WP:SPS. But, you are right, whether the Website is Azeri or not is not relevant with respect to reliability.  Sandstein  17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein,

Please pay attention to here, a comment posted by Serouj. Please take some measures, so that this kind of racist comments will not be posted against me here again. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a WP:DIFF of the edit you believe is racist, and tell me why you believe it it racist? I'm not sure that I see the problem.  Sandstein  16:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Subsection

The warning would seem to go double for a "new" editor, Dighaphet, who also made little effort to couch his arguments in more neutral wording, alleging that the article's supposed mistakes are a result of (ethnic) Armenian editors. It's strangely reminiscent of editor Tuscumbia's comments, which got him blocked some time ago, and for which reason I actually requested a CU to be carried out. Coincidence?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes, not good either. But the sock stuff needs to be looked at via SPI.  Sandstein  18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi Sandstein, I've been asked as an informal mediator to look at edit war happening on the Tsitsernavank Monastery article, and would like your advice on Wikipedia policy as you seem to have been involved in a number of RFC and ArbComs on Azeri/Armenian "discussions". The reversions revolve around two key parts, location and affiliation. The affiliation is a simple issue of sources in my mind, the location seems to be the powder keg in alot of these discussion. One group is insistent on including that the monastery is in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the other that it is in Azerbijian. I've looked through the RFCs/ArbComs, and any number of ANI threads and nowhere can I see that Wikipedia has given recognition to the republic, outside of it's own article space, though the 'linked to' to the article is impressive. My question is do we recognise NKR as a geographical entity, in that we use it as a location? From what I've seen so far I would say no, but I'm not so certain as to try and guide the editors without all the facts. My belief is that this is an article on a monastery and not a real forum for where these discussion should be occuring. I would be inclined to push the editors towards that the wording on the location should be as neutral as possible without trying to raise any partisan hackles, and let the discussion move elsewhere. Any input would be appreciated. Regards ^Khukri 18:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, well, as an admin I can't make content decisions and as an editor I have near zero knowledge about or interest in the whole conflict, but the problem seems to be that the monastery is in territory controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and also claimed by Azerbaijan, is that correct? If so, why doesn't the article simply say so? E.g., "... in the village of Kesalar, which is controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and also claimed by Azerbaijan". That would be a neutral wording that does not take a position on the validity of either claim. But of course that's a silly discussion to have at the article level; this looks like a broader issue covering many articles and should be discussed in a RfC at the wikiproject level.

Oh, and please watch the edit war at Tsitsernavank Monastery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If that continues, and ends at WP:AE, most people involved are likely to be substantially sanctioned.  Sandstein  18:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and I agree there are far better places to resolve this than in this article space. As I look through this there seem to be these little edit wars going on across the whole area, and it maybe time to initiate an RFC on the whole debate to have a defined naming convention along the same lines as Macedonia, Ireland and Taiwan. Not sure if I'm the man to drag that one through by the nose though. Anways thanks for taking the time to respond. Regards ^Khukri 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Check Mail

Hello, Sandstein/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bill william compton^Talk 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not normally reply by mail (see my user page) and you asked me not to reply on your talk page, so I will reply here. As I said, your concern needs checkuser attention. Please e-mail a checkuser administrator and attach (not copy and paste) all relevant evidence. Since I do not have checkuser access, I think that I cannot help you.  Sandstein  14:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

Hi. I've nominated Nick Perito, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. We hope (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC) We hope (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But half of the credit goes to you.  Sandstein  16:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just tap away at one article or another that I might be able to add to in some way. Did this when I started with Perry Como; someone nominated it as a GA. :-) We hope (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Archives talk page needs to be updated :)

Sandstein, I somehow came across your talk page from other talk pages regarding your discussion on WP:NPOV a few weeks ago. Then I couldn't find the discussion because they were archived. I went to your Archives page per instructions on top of your Talk page. I couldn't see the recent archives there, then I realized your Archives page did not have the year 2011 yet. Per your Archives page, you requested nobody to edit those pages. So I'm just letting you know that I finally found the discussion here by looking at your Talk page's history. Could you update your Archives page so no poor future editor has to track down any recent discussions that has been archived? Much appreciated. Cheers, CalvinTy 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the notice. Updated.  Sandstein  16:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)