User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/August

WAIT

I did it again before I got your warning! Don't block! Anyways, is it not for involved editors only? TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Depending on whether they consider themselves involved in disputes with you, editors may either make a statement in a separate section or engage in threaded discussion in the section "Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheShadowCrow". But under no circumstances may you remove or alter their edits.  Sandstein  17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

RFARs and Standing

In connection with your statement at the Bwilkins RFAR, I thought I'd reply directly to you so as to not distract the thread from its original subject. It is untrue that the filing party needs to be involved with a dispute before he can bring it to arbitration. In fact, many of our most problematic disputes were resolved through arbitration after an utterly uninvolved editor decided something had to be done, then filed an arbitration request. In my experience, the disputants themselves often have less to lose in prolonging a dispute than in requesting arbitration – in no small part because they will often find themselves sanctioned. Uninvolved community members are very much able to draw an ongoing problem to the committee's attention; it would be the rankest proceduralism if this were ever to not be the case. Regards, AGK [•] 23:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Nonetheless, I recommend considering to adopt a standing requirement: If two editors are engaged in a dispute, but neither of them wishes arbitration, and the dispute impacts nobody else, then what possible grounds could there be for ArbCom to intervene sua sponte? However, if the dispute does impact other editors, for example people wanting to edit articles which are disrupted by edit-warring, or administrators who find that damage to the project is not preventable with normal tools, then these people should be able to request arbitration.  Sandstein  12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised at that part of your statement at the BWilkins's RFAR as well. Your response would seem to carve a very narrow exception to the rule. In other words, it would be rare that a dispute between two editors sufficient to go to ArbCom would not affect the community. Although not a perfect analogy, it's a little like a civil vs. a criminal case. In a civil case, one needs standing, but a criminal case is prosecuted on behalf of the people, and it doesn't matter if, for example, the victim wants to pursue the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure that criminal (rather than civil or administrative) proceedings are the best template for conceiving of arbitration - there's no prosecution, for instance. But generally, arbitration is part of dispute resolution, and this presupposes that there is a dispute to begin with. And if all parties to a dispute do not desire arbitration, then arbitration can't resolve the dispute.  Sandstein  15:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Very few analogies are perfect. Standing is a legal principle, so I used a legal analogy. Arbitration can resolve a dispute, even if the parties to the dispute do not want ArbCom to do so. (BTW, think of the editor bringing the matter to ArbCom as the prosecutor.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure that's the case. Arbitration isn't like mediation, where it could never conceivably do any good unless all the parties are willing to cooperate with the process. ArbCom can act coercively, up to and including banning people entirely, and that may be necessary even in cases where the parties to the dispute know they all have some degree of fault and are hesitant to bring a case for that reason, or where they aren't even aware of the arbitration process (and you'd be surprised how many editors are not). In those cases, where an uninvolved third party sees bickering and troublemaking between certain editors causing disruption, it's perfectly appropriate for them to bring the issue to ArbCom's attention, and for ArbCom to step in if necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

pff

Ah, genius! Alter my comment to where the Admins can ignore, just as they've been doing this past week!

So why do you and B get to leave your sections? You're both involved editors. According to you, "involved" has no meaning. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We are participating in our capacity as uninvolved administrators. Note that "uninvolved" means "has not adversely interacted with you in another than an administrative capacity", see WP:INVOLVED.  Sandstein  20:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber melanosporum

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

per recent revert

Per this, please read Wikipedia:PGBOLD#Substantive_changes, which states that "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views." In any case, I've started a discussion at the talk page, please share your views there. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm of the view that changes to policy pages, unlike other pages, always require prior consensus.  Sandstein  08:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I protect against vandalism

Hi Sandstein! I have added a section for "Petitions" and "Awards" to the Edward Snowden page by translating the corresponding sections from the German page. However a certain user removes them immediately after I add them. What can I do about this? Although I have edited many pages I have no experience in dealing with vandals. I saw that Wikipedia has locks against them, but I don't know if and how to use them. Can you tell me what I should do? Fkbreitl (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. After looking at the history of Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it appears that the removal of the content you added was not vandalism (see WP:VANDNOT), but rather a good-faith content disagreement with people who are of the opinion that the content you added does not belong in the article. You should not call such actions vandalism, as that tends to be perceived as confrontative. For advice on how to resolve such disputes, please see WP:DR.  Sandstein  08:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. According to WP:DR the first step in DR is communication and an immediate removal is violating the normal protocol. So what to do in such a situation where the person is avoiding communication and the WP guidelines? Fkbreitl (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has avoided communication, as far as I can tell, because you have not been communicating. Try starting an article talk page discussion thread and invite the others to comment on your opinion as to whether the material should be included. See also WP:BRD.  Sandstein  14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In dubio pro reo. This basic principle must also hold for Wikipedia - meaning every contribution is good until proven otherwise. So not the author has to justify every new contribution but the referee his criticism or objections. (Otherwise Wikipedia is getting nowhere.) Moreover a referee can only correct contents because it is wrong, but he cannot remove information just because he doesn't like it - because obviously the author finds it relevant and so the situation is even. Therefore the referee needs to initiate a discussion if he wants to suppress information from a page. By the way the contents in question was just a translation, showing that it was already withstanding a refereeing process and was found relevant by a larger number of people. Fkbreitl (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hi Sandstein, this is a notice to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding the Scientology case has been closed and archived. You can view the original discussion here. FOr the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

TSC question

Sandstein, can you please take a look at this discussion and let me know your thoughts? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. My view is that any edits on Commons are not covered by the topic ban, but any edits to Wikipedia are, including edits related to using Commons pictures on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  08:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Majipoor series

Hi, Sandstein. A courtesy note (since I don't trust Echo) to let you know I did a partial revert on this. I believe the content you removed was entirely consistent with accepted practice in articles on fictional works, a spot check of various articles confirms my belief, and I don't see anything in WP:WAF to suggest otherwise. If you feel strongly about it, may I suggest you take it to the talk page? Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin Gorman

Since I have mentioned your name in a comment to AN/I, I am assuming I also have to inform you (as I did everyone else I mentioned in the comment): [1]. Laval (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Sandstein, could I have your opinion if a block is merited here? I think you gave a Scientology warning to the user in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Npp request

How do you request to become a new pages patroller and what are the rules Blakeleonard (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need to request anything. The rules, to the extent there are any, are at WP:NPP. If you have further questions, you should ask on the talk page there. New page patrol requires considerable Wikipedia editing experience, so you should be sure to have a grip on most common policies and guidelines before taking action on newly created pages.  Sandstein  14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for Opinion

Hello. I am interested in requesting an opinion on part of an article I edited. The section is here, Adorn by Wendy Williams section. This part of the article had an WP:UNDUE tag attached to it, so I started a discussion in the necessary talk page to gain a consensus so the tag could finally be removed. Nearly four months have passed since the section was created and there has been no input. It would seem more appropriate to wait for a response instead of simply removing the tag, which is why I am requesting your input on the section. Silver Buizel (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no opinion on the merits. Per WP:BRD you can just try removing it, and then enter into discussion with anybody who disagrees.  Sandstein  20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

xrdp question

Hey Sandstein, the xrdp article was deleted by you, what was the reason?. Thank you 82.166.113.41 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xrdp was to delete the article.  Sandstein  13:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Query re: userfied articles

Hi, how long is reasonable to allow development of an article that was userfied following an initial AfD decision to delete? There have been no edits to User:Colonel_Warden/List_of_Indian_castes since you userfied it and, frankly, I still don't see how it could possibly be developed in a manner that resolves the issues that were raised in the AfD here. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no set period. I recommend asking the user what their plans for the article are before possibly nominating it for MfD.  Sandstein  17:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case it is best that I leave it alone because they are already not AGFing me in an ongoing deletion discussion. Thanks for clarifying. - Sitush (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Georgia (country) to Georgia move suggestion

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on that.  Sandstein  05:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A concern

I stumbled upon the edit of user:Vincedumond in the Pope Urban II article. For some reason the wording, to me, appeared familiar and upon searching, found out that user:Vincedumond is copying sections from Jay Rubenstein's book, Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse.[2] Apparently this user has also copied sections of this book to the article Council of Piacenza.[3] I left Vincedumond a message asking him to rewrite the section he copied, but have gotten no response.[4]
Rubenstein's book is searchable on amazon.com.[5] Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find the source text via Amazon. I recommend asking at Wikipedia:Copyright problems where there are specialists for such issues.  Sandstein  19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

AE etiquette

Hello Sandstein. I am not accustomed to participating in requests for arbitration enforcement. Could you please advise me? If I want to make comments on matters raised by other editors participating in the report, do I do so under "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" or should I add a new "Statement by Psychonaut" section under "Discussion concerning SonofSetanta"? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Either way works, I think.  Sandstein  19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gag rule question

Is there anywhere on Wikipedia that says you are allowed to put a ban on appeals and under what circumstances this is ok in?

You also said I can appeal your totalitarian censorship here, but I cannot figure out where to go from there. TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AC/DS allows "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project", which in this case includes limiting your repeated appeals to the community against sanctions imposed by other admins. You remain free to file an appeal to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  04:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you are a reasonable man, otherwise you wouldn't have admitted that I didn't violate any ban way back when. So I hope you will understand that this limit rule is Lannister-level unreasonable.

The only purpose this rule is serving is so Admins can block me and avoid talking to me. Maybe under the circumstance of a user making an appeal everyday when nothing's clearly changed is reasonable, but when the user makes one appeal? That's just plain censorship. Even an Admin called it a gag rule. Even though I haven't appealed anything yet, Bbb23 still blocks me for everything because of this. When a one month ban lasts seven minutes, clearly it's not being used right. As imposer, do you still think this is ensuring the smooth functioning of anything? Saying this fixes the problem is like burying pollution. TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to the advice that I and others have already provided, which is: drop it and edit something else.  Sandstein  20:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

An additional note

Is putting something directly AA2 related on my user page a violation of the ban? TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes.  Sandstein  04:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Scarlett Keeling case

Hey Sandstein, why'd you delete the page on Scarlett Keeling? The case is still open in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.192.15 (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Scarlett Keeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted because the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Keeling was that it should be deleted.  Sandstein  10:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Shakespearean "Their"

I, and my godmotherly Internet alter ego Granny Grammar -- Prune-Faced Grammarian, approve of your use of the semi-classical "their" in your note on Private Manning.

The good news, imho, is that this form is coming, or has come, back into general acceptance. "Anyone who doesn't like Rosewell Greer's needlepoint should shut his mouth" might put some people in danger of an unnecessary altercation with Rosey. Obviously "their mouth" is what is called for.

Bets wishes,

DavidLJ (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Appeal

I have made an appeal on my talk page. Unfortunately, and very typical of me, I have made a mistake somewhere in using the template and I can't figure it out for myself. Would you be kind enough to examine it and see where I've gone wrong please? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, but you should copy the appeal to WP:AE in order to attract the attention of others.  Sandstein  16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to do that now. In the interim, although it may seem superfluous, I am required to notify you of the appeal I have lodged, here and replace certain text with the diff to here. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Copied and pasted the appeal here as per your advice. Can you check that I've done it correctly, although it looks ok to me? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems technically OK.  Sandstein  16:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Permission requested

Commons have applied a notice at File:Ulster Defence Regiment Insignia.jpg requesting the insignia there be reuploaded as a .svg or .png file. I am in a position to do so but to maintain the integrity of the articles it is used on I would need to change the link on each one. The file is being used on 19 articles concerning the Ulster Defence Regiment, 18 of which come under the current topic ban I am appealing. May I have your permission please to modify the infoboxes on the 18 articles affected? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, this is within the scope of your topic ban.  Sandstein  17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an image of a badge Sandstein, not text. Just a basic admin task to comply with a Commons request. Nothing contentious about it. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That does not change that it is subject to the topic ban. See WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad.  Sandstein  17:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If UDR images are covered by the topic ban then it has already been breached four times today at File:5_UDR_Record_Sleeve.jpg. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Psychonaut those comments just go to prove that you have serious issues with me despite your denials. I hope Sandstein has taken note. You will go to any lengths to try and land me in hot water. FYI, and which you should know, altering an image file "off article" has nothing to do whatsoever with the article. I can still upload as many images as I want for the UDR articles and have another editor put them in by proxy, which I fully intend to do. I don't know what your game is but your complaint at the AE board was malicious. You have got your way, so far. I hope you enjoy your pyrrhic victory but remind you that similar courses of action in the future will show you for the spiteful person that you have appeared to be all along. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a drive-by note; I have removed File:5_UDR_Record_Sleeve.jpg from that article. I have no interest in any Troubles/Irish/whatever topic area, but I do have a bit of experience in WP:NFCC and album artwork issues. Excepting rare circumstances, you can't use cover art outside of an article on the album itself, as it does not satisfy our non-free image policies. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

SonofSetanta, your editing of image pages used in the Ulster Defence Regiment article violates your topic ban from The Troubles because the Ulster Defence Regiment is a topic related to The Troubles. Additionally, your personal attacks above against Psychonaut, in relation to these images, are completely unwarranted and violate our policy WP:NPA. In enforcement of your topic ban, I am blocking you temporarily.  Sandstein  14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issues

It's about time I defended myself here. This all started because a copyright enforcer decided I shouldn't use File:The Yellow Card.jpg and several others at Ulster Defence Regiment. I objected and called on Cailil for help. He told me what to do so I filed an NFCC case. After that about four of these copyright enforcers started tagging virtually all the images on any article I had ever edited, including many uploaded by me under my old identities, which they weren't aware of at the time - both old identities were marked as "retired". Some of the deletion tags were only supported by the statement, "suspected of copyvio" and these were generally pictures I had taken myself. I was not happy at all and made it known, but as well as whinging I checked up on the requirements and also contacted OTRS. As a result I rescanned my originals and offered to upload negatives or send entire series of digital pictures to OTRS. I also worked with OTRS to ensure the licencing of my images was correct - it did take some time requiring reuploads and relicencing. During that period I uploaded three images from the Boston Library which I thought qualified for use, they didn't, so I made a mistake there. Apart from that any images I wanted to keep are still there.

My complaint, then and now, was that the copyright enforcers don't try to help someone like me who didn't have the prior knowledge of what to do but who was well intended. They just tag images for deletion and quote something from NFCC without pointing out what the correct procedure is to retain the image. To me that's wrong. They should try to be helpful. Is it any wonder I got paranoid? I got it all sorted though. I still make the occasional error when uploading an image but I know what to do to correct it now. The final block fell into place the other day when an admin declared File:The Yellow Card.jpg to be "kept" showing that it didn't need to be removed from the article in the first place.

This (albeit a potted version) is what some editors are still whinging about . Not the "Battle Royal" Ed Johnston says it was. But it did take almost two weeks for me to sort it all out. As for File:Ulster_Defence_Regiment_Insignia.jpg - all it needs is to be reuploaded as a .png file. It's just colours and apparently JPEG's are not the way to do it. So I reupload the image, nominate the old for one deletion and replace the line in the infobox to end as .png instead of .jpg. Where's the harm? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved and have no interest in these copyright matters, so this is not the forum in which you should defend yourself. But please note that continued discussion of the copyright status of these images violates your The Troubles topic ban.  Sandstein  14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion of Page

I was in the process of gathering information to start a page on the term "historytelling" or "history-telling" based on a recent TedX Talk given by Mahyad Tousi at the London Business School. I inteded to link Mahyad Tousi's Wiki to the hitorytelling article since his TedX talk is the most recent use of the term, but I see that you marked it for deletion in March of 2012. I was hoping that you would reconsider undeleting the page.

Cheers, Carlo Diego

Mahyad Tousi's TedX Talk at the London Business School — The Future of History (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rlMNMsCmw)

Other references to history-telling can be found here:

The Erotics of Retrospection: Historytelling, Audience Response, and the Strategies of Desire, by: Paul Hernadi, New Literary History, Vol. 12, No. 2, Interpretation and Literary History (Winter, 1981), pp. 243-252, Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/468669?uid=3739832&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102586730983)

History Telling, by: James McGrath Morris, The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 32, No. 1 (Winter, 2008), pp. 8-9, Published by: Wilson Quarterly (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40262335?uid=3739832&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102586730983) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlodiego (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean Historytelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? We have no record of an article with that title or similar spellings.  Sandstein  20:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)