User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/July

request for assistance

To editor Sandstein, I am contacting you as your views seemed to prevail in recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request (This page was final version of "ACAR" before it was archived). Within that discussion, there were one or two or more parties who noted problems with Dudemanfellabra's behavior, and it was discussed that Dudemanfellabra perhaps should be warned about incivility. Yesterday and today, there is continuing incident going on, involving Orlady, Dudemanfellabra, Nyttend and myself. I would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way, about this edit, with edit summary "That was probably the most petty and douchiest thing I've ever seen in my life. Grow up.". The wp:CIVIL page specifically prohibits calls to others to "grow up", as obviously insulting; the douche mention is obviously vulgar and it does offend me. I have to go look it up to understand, that it means thoroughly contemptible, and that is what I am being called. However, although I have browsed the civility guidelines and the past arbitrations, I am not clear what I am allowed and not allowed to do at this point. I am exhorted not to comment on other editors, but the distinctions between commenting on editors' behavior vs. editors themselves seem rather unclear in the guidelines and policies and arbitration statements. I consider it possible that others could call for me to be blocked from Wikipedia for asking, here, about whether I am allowed to respond to their behavior, because obviously i must be referring to editors or their behavior. Taken to an extreme, this catch-22-ness is impossible to deal with. I need some help, and I believe I should not be blocked for seeking to deal with troublesome behavior that is perhaps taking advantage of past arbitration, etc. So:

1. Hypothetically, if and when parties collude in a tag-team way and repeatedly follow and express contempt and disrespect, what recourse do I have? In particular, am I allowed to open ANI incident reports or RFC/U's or not, which by their nature are to comment on other editors behavior.

2. Could you take a look at wt:NRHP right now (Revision history), and perhaps comment or take some action in a stabilizing way.

sincerely, --doncram 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Subsequently editor Nyttend has seen fit to give me a "final warning" notice at my Talk page, calling this edit by me a "personal attack", and he has restored my initial comment in the NRHP discussion thread but not my later comment. I don't see mine as a personal attack, but had already removed it anyhow (towards trying to let the discussion there die), and decided to ask for advice here, which I did before receiving Nyttend's warning. Again, if you could comment or take some stabilizing action, I would appreciate it. I note that Nyttend, an administrator taking notice of my offense at the "douchiest" insult, chooses not to warn anyone about that, but rather to find fault with my complaint. I find this profoundly unfair and unpleasant. --doncram 15:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, it's not clear to me how all of this relates to WP:AE. Could you please provide all relevant links, per WP:GRA?  Sandstein  16:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I hoped you would accept a brief statement and direction to wt:NRHP without extensive diffs. Okay, I have revised above to include a link to This page was final version before it was archived the recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request] (let me refer to this as "ACAR"), and I expand somewhat here (more than I hoped to have to do). Within that ACAR, the one or two or more parties who find some degree of issue with Dudemanfellabra's behavior include you, The Devil's Advocate, and Kumioko. In this diff, you evaluated words of Dudemanfellabra (which you quoted) with statement: "While I agree that such comments are uncollegial and confrontative and ought to be avoided, they do focus on a reasonably specific perceived content problem, rather than on Doncram as a person, which is why I would argue they fall short of being sanctionable, at least under our current (regrettably loose, in my view) civility standards." That seems to be setting forth a certain standard on what is acceptable, that limitedness of scope, that specificity, somehow matters. I would tend to agree with the principle you suggest in general, but what if the objectionable behavior is one incident in a series of arguably unnecessary complaints/comments, and if that series continues? I didn't come here for the purpose of arguing at all with you, but consider the same editor, who read your comments, going on soon after to pick out and describe my behavior in an offensive way; is that acceptable? I hope not. Also within the closed ACAR, in this diff, Dudemanfellabra states "... if he just put a little more time and effort into everything he does to make it more presentable and less quick-fix-y, the number of complaints/attacks about/on him would drop off drastically". That seemed to me to be an assertion that complaints/attacks are okay to pursue, while I believe there must be some limits, and I was and am concerned that idea of continuing to attack/complain was not repudiated. Editor The Devils Advocate comments "@Sandstein, did you see the comment Dudeman made? While one could argue that uncivil remarks such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style" are better off ignored, it is quite obscene to suggest that objecting to such remarks is worthy of sanction. I would think the purpose of the probation is to keep Doncram from over-reacting or attacking without prior provocation, not to give anyone he might be in a dispute with a chance to get their licks in with impunity". I won't quote from Kumioko's comments. This should support adequately my assertion that "there were one or two or more parties who noted problems", okay?

Also I note that you stated "Doncram is warned not to approach discussions confrontatively, not to exhibit signs of ownership, not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith. The editors who are in disputes with Doncram are reminded that these expectations apply to them also. Sandstein 07:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (emphasis added), in your closure of an Administrative Enforcement action.

Although I am obviously selective in what I quoted above, I don't dispute the result of the ACAR (which was technically to deny the request by Nyttend), nor do I dismiss the comments and concerns of others such as yourself and AGK and Mathsci and EdJohnston and Thryduulf and NuclearWarfare within the ACAR. Rather, I am seeking advice.

To clarify perhaps, by my original statement above that I "would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way", I mean mostly that I would like to ask for advice on what forum and how I can request that. E.g., is it your view that I am prohibited from asking that, in every forum?

I am not now notifying all these parties mentioned here, as would clearly be necessary for an ANI or other more formal proceeding, because my point of coming here was to ask you personally for some comment or action. Your views seemed to prevail, were most cited, in the ACAR. I seek your advice about whether, or under what circumstances, and how you feel that I am allowed to comment on the behavior of others, if and when they might engage with incivility against me, for example, contrary to your own advice to them (in the emphasized text above). Please note, I was/am not seeking out confrontation, I am seeking to avoid it, but I don't want to be driven from the project in order to avoid it. And in general, although I disagree with some specifics within Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram, I accept its outcome and I am striving to abide by it. I am, however, beset with some questions of how to deal with cases of following- and negative-type behaviors. I would appreciate a discussion of cases, perhaps phrased as hypothetical cases, and guidance. For example, what if an editor terms an edit of mine as a "personal attack", when I do not agree, where/how am I allowed to dispute that, and perhaps to call the accusation a personal attack itself. I hate this. But anyhow, if you are willing to discuss, online or offline, or you have a suggestion on how I could get guidance from others, please do advise me of that. --doncram 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

All right... Without having read all of the above due to its length, it appears that you find the conduct of others with which you are in disputes objectionable. You may or may not be right about this, but because the arbitration case contains only remedies concerning you (and another editor not at issue here), but not concerning the editors you are now in a dispute with, I don't see how this dispute can be addressed in the context of WP:AE, other than to discuss any misconduct by you. You will therefore need to use the standard process, WP:DR, and the fora described therein, to resolve this dispute. I hope this helps, but I don't think that I can give more specific advice. Because the specifics of the dispute do not interest me, I ask that you and the people you disagree with do not use my talk page to discuss this further, but rather use each other's talk pages for that purpose.  Sandstein  22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sort of. No offense, but your replies together seem a bit unhelpful. You first demand that I provide "all relevant links" before you will respond, then you won't read "due to its length". I am left wondering whether I can rely upon your guidance. You have taken it upon yourself to judge me, taking the lead in two proceedings involving me, which happen to matter to me. You have some responsibility to read and reply thoughtfully, IMHO. I guess i will sort of rely upon your advice, and invoke this discussion, with qualification that I am uncertain of your considered opinion because you seem to refuse to provide proper consideration in giving it. This seems less than ideal. Sincerely, --doncram 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Saedon's block

Hey Sandstein

Just reaching out to you about your block of User:Saedon. As I understand it this was taken as a normal administrator action, in response to his comment here. Now; I of all people have no problem with blocks for civility or harassment, but to my knowledge this isn't the sort of thing Saedon gets up to; he doesn't exactly have priors, or evidence that he's been warned before and hasn't heeded it. Jumping straight to a block, without any opportunity offered to discuss it, seems a bit extreme. Can you lay out your thinking behind the block, please? Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was also curious about the speed of the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding on Saedon's talk page.  Sandstein  21:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For rising above "difference anxiety" as manifest from the statement about religion at Drg's ban appeal. (I'm not gloating about the block though.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

500 word limit at AE

I believe that the 500 word limit was intended to apply to the initial request and statements, and not include subsequent replies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

AE isn't really supposed to be a forum for discussion. It's for requesting admin action.  Sandstein  04:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but there needs to be discussion on whether the request is actionable and if so, what the appropriate action is to handle it. As you know, I agree with the action that was taken in this particular case,[1] but I really do think the alleged violator should be given an opportunity to defend themselves against their accusers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. They just need to do it concisely.  Sandstein  04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, each individual response should be concise, but that doesn't mean that collectively all comments by a single editor in an AE discussion are subject to the 500 word limit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

AE is not a place for discussion, in my view. It is a place to request action. Any discussion about whether the request is actionable and what action to take needs to take place between the administrators who consider taking action, and not between anyone else. If the defendant feels the need to respond to any statements by others that are actually relevant to the outcome of the request (which is seldom the case), they can do so within 500 words, or ask an administrator to be allowed more space. In my experience, some 90% of what is said by non-administrators at AE has no relevance to the question of whether an ArbCom remedy was violated by the diffs at issue, and could easily have been omitted.  Sandstein  08:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

While you might think that AE is not the place for discussion, that's clearly not correct. The template that we use to file RfEs creates a section specifically for discussion. Why are we inviting editors at AE to engage in discussion if AE isn't the place for discussion? Obviously, that doesn't make any sense.

And, since you brought it up (not me), I strongly disagree that AE discussion is only between administrators and not between anyone else. Admins are simply editors with an extra bit. Any uninvolved editors have as much right to participate in the discussions as anyone else. It is the role of admins to carry out the consensus of these discussions. Nothing more, nothing less. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that AE is not a place for back-and-forth discussion among the general editorship. It is for those affected by a request to make their statements, and possibly for administrators to discuss what to do about the request. Contrary to other processes of Wikipedia, AE is not based on consensus, and editors other than administrators and the parties to a request have no particular "right" to participate in it. That is because arbitral decisions task individual administrators with enforcing the decisions. Any form of discussion or consensus-building is not envisioned (let alone required) as part of that enforcement process, and neither is the participation of non-administrators. The AE board is just a convenient place to centralize requests, and any discussions among administrators are a matter of convenience, not a procedural requirement.  Sandstein  17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am taken aback by your comment. I'm not aware of any policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc which states that RfE requests are only for admins to decide and that non-admin's opinions don't count. I'm perfectly willing to consider removing AE from my watchlist if my contributions are neither appreciated or accepted, but I would like to see which policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc. specifically states that the opinions of non-admins don't matter. Can you please point me to the policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc which says this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not aware of any policy concerning conduct at AE, but that's probably because none is needed. As I said, the individual arbitration decisions address individual administrators ("Any uninvolved administrator may ..."), not any group of people, so no rules for group decisionmaking are needed. However, non-administrators can of course (and are welcome to, as far as I'm concerned) usefully contribute to AE by pointing out relevant diffs as evidence, or relevant points of procedure. It's just that they don't have any authority to take an enforcement decision themselves. But because enforcement decisions are individual decisions, neither can one administrator overrule another, so the difference between admins and others is perhaps not all that important.  Sandstein  20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't there an ArbCom ruling or motion on the 500 length limit at WP:AE? If so, what was the wording? Volunteer Marek 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of.  Sandstein  04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If I recall correctly, I was the editor who originally suggested the 500 word limit for AE. Unfortunately, the talk page for AE is shared with the talk page for Wikipedia Arbitration/Requests and there seems to be 4 sets of talk page archives making it virtually impossible to find the diff where I first made the suggestion, but I can assure you that it was not my intention that 500 word limit should apply to collectively to all posts made by an editor in a single AE discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, so you don't look as though you're operating according to an upper-class–lower-class framework, what proportion of what is said at AE by admins is tosh? 75%? Incidentally, I fully support a tight word limit. Tony (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, on average, 90% of what all people say is not very helpful. I believe there is a term for that phenomenon. But in my experience, at AE, discussions in the administrator section tend to be reasonably focused on how the request should be processed. By comparison, a high proportion of other contributions are dedicated to rehashing or continuing to fight the underlying conflict or to making sweeping allegations without evidence. That is not helpful and often counterproductive.  Sandstein  17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sturgeon's Law.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Then why not spell out the rules of engagement a bit more tightly so that everyone—or most people—engage as admins do there? And keep the word limit (or make it shorter). Tony (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No objection to that, though the red box with instructions is already quite long. Maybe someone has a good idea how to communicate these expectations, but I'm not sure if they would be heeded much.  Sandstein  16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@AQfK - Yeah, that's what I thought too though I can't exactly remember right now. There was a request to limit comments to 500 words but I can't quite remember how it went and whether or not it was supported by either the Arbs or the community. I'm also too busy to actually find a diff to the request and as you say, it's a whole big mess over there. Sandstein, did you comment on that request/motion? Volunteer Marek 04:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I recall I proposed some sort of word limit after we had several cases case where an editor posted 5,000+ word screeds, and eventually there was consensus to impose the same word limit that is in effect at WP:RFAR.  Sandstein  06:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As an observer from the peanut gallery, my opinion is that 500-word limits imposed on subjects of AE requests are likely to be unfair to the editors accused. Wouldn't a third of the word count previously posted by other accounts be a more reasonable limit on responses (as long as the tightest limit was 500 words in any case)? Italick (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors can in any event ask administrators for permission to exceed the limit, which I would be ready to grant whenever the situation would otherwise be unfair. Perhaps less ready if the user has already used 1000 words to complain about the perfidy of his opponents who are trying to impede the progress of truth.  Sandstein  16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I think it might be helpful to formalize the process by which communication limits are extended. First, I think that an editor's answer to a direct question from an administrator should not count against other communication limits on the page. Those answers are expected and are not just being offered up. An administrator could give a word allowance for the response, and it could be 500 words if the allowance is unstated. Then, there could be a section of the page for discussion proposals by the subject(s) of the AE request. I see this as a section where parties request questions from administrators. A proposal should usually fit within 75 words. Such a process solicits a lot more communication from the AE request subject(s), while it should get them organized about what they want to say, resulting in fewer terribly long screeds. Italick (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a big fan of instruction creep. In the rare cases where more space is needed, I expect that the users involved will be able to work something out.  Sandstein  11:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your sound understanding of the right atmosphere necessary for building a great encyclopaedia as manifest from your comments and actions around the Drg-Saedon matters. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wanted to say a couple of things:

• You closed the AE request after it was open only 2 days over the weekend. You didn't give another admin a chance to weigh in. I don't think that's proper with such a serious complaint even if you personally think it's "vexatious" (which let me assure you it wasn't).
• I've been editing in the topic area for years and have a completely clean record. Not so much as a short block for edit warring. I've submitted successful AE complaints in the past. I haven't so much as made a single comment there for almost a year. I am not a serial AE abuser and again, even if you think my complaint was "vexatious" (it wasn't), your sanction is unproportionally harsh. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Two days are plenty of time for any interested admin to comment; in addition AE actions do not in principle require discussion at all. As to the appropriateness of the sanction, it is too light if anything. I considered imposing additional sanctions for your confrontative and provocative approach to discussions, but that would need a separate request and a more thorough examination, including of the conduct of the editors with whom you disagree.  Sandstein  07:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In principle you are right. In practice AEs are seldom (if ever?) closed by one admin after two days.

You don't really need to impose any more sanctions since, as I said, I don't think I can in good conscious volunteer my time at a place where Jew-baiting is allowed, and now I see that complaints are closed without serious discussion by uninvolved people (you know that except Iselilja everyone who commented is involved up to their eyeballs, and shows up to support Nishidani every time he's at AE, which happens quite regularly). Not only that, the complainer is smacked with a disproportionate sanction pour encourager les auteres. No wonder the only Jews left working in this topic area are the anti-Zionist ones. Wikipedia is sure living up to its reputation, unfortunately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And one last thing: If someone told you that as your kids dress up as a fairy, or batman, or a princess or whatever and cheerfully go outside to celebrate Purim, what they're actually celebrating is the deliberate killing of a large group of people from a specific ethnic group, you might also become "confrontative and provocative". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice Guy is right, we can't use modern terminologies when speaking about mythical events. Please read Purim#In recent history on how it sounds like. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

However Nice Guy's us-them approach isn't the best approach to take while editing Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently speaking about Jews in the same terms the Nazis did is not as big a problem as complaining about that kind of behavior is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice Guy, this us-them approach doesn't work, it leads to sanctions: blocks and bans! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Also don't forget Godwin's law. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I urge you to read the first sentence of this and reconsider your handling of this issue. It's as if he wrote it about me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Umm, if I may interject, I was actually referring to some editors who have engaged very constructively over a wide range of topics to help build the encyclopedia. Such editors are very helpful, but are human, and can be sucked into less than optimum behavior by intolerable disruption and persistence against consensus. When I said I fully endorsed Tarc's comment in support of Sandstein, it was cases such as yours that I had in mind (permalink). I should disclose that I am a wikifriend of Nishidani, having seen his excellent work in topics unrelated to WP:ARBPIA, but I am sufficiently detached to be confident that Sandstein acted appropriately in that AE situation. What many onlookers miss is that lots of admins see what happens at AE, but they usually do not get involved because like any sensible person they want to avoid wasting hours getting involved in yet-another dispute involving people battling over righting some wrong. However, if an admin really disagreed with Sandstein's close of the AE request, they would have quickly said so. Even after exposure at ANI, no one has chosen to question that close at AE, which is extremely good evidence for the conclusion that the close was correct. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if the way something you said resonated with me has some negative implications for your friend. My point here was not about the close itself, but about Sandstein's assumption of bad faith on my part. I was trying to impress on him that I was acting in good faith. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Violation

A user who has been topic banned under WP:ARBAA2 has violated the ban here and here and has created an article about the conflict (See: Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War) Even though the user appealed for an appeal and has been permitted to edit only Azerbaijani sports articles, he/she continues to violate his/her ban. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please use WP:AE for such requests.  Sandstein  11:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, there's no need to an AE request, he is already topic banned and is violating it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And your request for me to do something about it is a request for arbitration enforcement, which is what WP:AE is for. Which means you need to spend a few minutes to actually write up a proper submission with links and dated diffs as evidence, and a place for the other user to respond, which is the point.  Sandstein  17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I wrote article about book not political consent, which is not related to my ban as it doesn't intervene with Azerbaijan-Armenian topic. Furthermore, Proudbolshoyeye accusing me on false allegations, I hope he gets punished for this.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:NovaSkola

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Violation, since I notice that User:Proudbolsahye already consulted you about the same issue. I'd be inclined to issue a one-month block. Since the violation is obvious, going to AE doesn't seem necessary. If NovaSkola had made a credible promise to refrain from further violations, I'd have considered it. Do you have any commment on the idea of a one-month block? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My edit

Hello, I made an edit to the article about the Bechdel test that you undid. I added "(and have names)" - yes, you are correct this is not in the original cartoon on which the test came from, but the test has evolved and has been adapted in research. Please look at it before changing it. The "name" element is important to us scholars. For information about me see: andrewpegoda.com/cv Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.70.182 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm copying this from my talk page to Talk:Bechdel test, which is the place for discussions concerning this topic, and will reply there.  Sandstein  06:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions

Do you make sure that an editor has not outed himself before issuing sanctions against editors for using his/her real name? Some editors in WP have a history of not being entirely honest about their editing histories. I suggest you check a certain off-wiki discussion site to see what I'm talking about. Cla68 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking whether they identify themselves on their user page and performing other targeted searches to determine whether outing has been or could be an issue with respect to a user. It's evidently impossible to check a veteran user's entire edit history. At any rate, I'm of the view that harassing an editor by publicizing their alleged name against their will is sanctionable irrespective of whether the name may have been made public once or twice years ago. I'm not in the habit of reading any offwiki fora, and certainly not for the purpose of basing any administrative action on their contents.  Sandstein  21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely two sides to this episode, Sandstein, and it looks like you are only seeing one of them. Getting both sides is very important, and if you have to use other sources besides WP, then it would be to everyone's benefit to do so, perhaps because WP's institutional memory is so short and inconsistent. Cla68 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one other editor seeing Sandstein's side of things because I concur that drg55's actions constituted outing. About a decade ago when I was working on a JD one of my professors asked my class what charge would be incurred if a man shot another man, who happened to be dead, but unbeknownst to the shooter. As might be expected, most of the class responded with something along the lines of corpse desecration or something like it. In actuality, the correct answer was attempted murder because the perpetrator's state of mind was such that he was attempting to kill someone. In this instance, drg55 had been warned on multiple occasions for outing violations but persisted in his actions, demonstrating that s/he has no respect for our policies vis a vis outing. So even if CO's name was previously available to those with excess time on their hands to go searching for his real identity, it's clear that drg55 had no problem with violating his privacy on multiple occasion simply to push an agenda N^oformation ^Talk 09:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the "Lady Eldon's French Lace" argument associated with Francis Wharton. See, among many discussions, Alan M. Dershowitz The best defence, Random House 2011 pp.85-116.( "Whatever Else It May Be, It is Not Murder to Shoot a Dead Body: Man Dies But Once.") Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In actuality, the correct answer was attempted murder because the perpetrator's state of mind was such that he was attempting to kill someone. Under Italian law, that would be called "impossible crime" (reato impossibile, cf. art. 49 of the Italian Penal Code, [2] or, if you understand Italian, Reato impossibile). In the case you mention, it would be impossible for the defendant to actually harm the interest protected by the rule that he allegedly broke (it's difficult to explain, but, basically, the rules prohibiting murder are there to protect what we call the "bene giuridico" – translated literally, it's "legal good", but, in this context, the expression means an interest which is deemed worthy of protection by the State – identified in a person's interest to his life and only conducts which damage or threaten said interest can be punished; in this case, since the victim was already dead, his right to life could no longer be threatened). This is a similar case, where Prioryman right to keep his identity secret is no longer protected by WP:OUTING, but may be protected, under the circumstances, by WP:HARASS. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we German-speaking lawyers call this Rechtsgut. Though if we want to be lawyerly here, I'd argue that the interest worthy of protection is the privacy of the user, and whether it is being breached for the first time or for any number of subsequent times is at most a minor consideration. That's why I agree that even if the instant case does not turn out to be a case of outing in the strict sense of "revealing private information hitherto not voluntarily revealed", it is a case of harassment, which is for most intents and purposes (such as sanctions) the same thing.  Sandstein  13:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to change TDA's sanction rationale to WP:HARASS? If so, then I think you need to extend the sanction to the arbitrators who have recently said the same thing that he did. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have said at WP:ARCA what I intend to do about the sanction, if there are no arbitrator objections.  Sandstein  04:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

According to WP:ARBPIA, if yu undo 3 editors in a single edit, is that 1 revert or 3 reverts? Pass a Method talk 07:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a question of ARBPIA, but a question of the more general policy at WP:EW. It says: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". I read this as meaning that one edit that reverts the actions of several other editors is one revert.  Sandstein  07:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI 14 July 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Badanagram (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong

I think this debate should have been closed as a keep, not no consensus, for three reasons. First, there were significantly more keep opinions than either merge or delete ones. Second, the keep opinions were significantly more policy-based - specifically, they largely discussed the sourcing of the article, while the other opinions largely didn't. Third, this decision is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Titans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purble Place, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Solitaire (Windows), all of which were opened around the same time by the same nominator and saw many of the same users participating, and all of which were closed as keeps.

Of course, this wouldn't really change much right now - the article stays either way - but articles with no consensus closures are obviously more subject to ending up on WP:DRV or undergoing a subsequent deletion nomination. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

AE appeal

Hello, I appealed the sanction you imposed on me here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Move of Marte Dalelv

You moved the article after closing the AfD debate, and I am all fine with that. However, I had started a Request for move debate before you moved it, so will you take a look at that and close that too? You can consider my request for move as withdrawn. I probably could close it myself, but I am not sure about the formal/technical procedure here. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved the article to Prosecution of Marte Dalelv without being aware of this request. I suppose the RfC can continue nonetheless.  Sandstein  11:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus' comment

I wanted to respond to Maunus' comment that he made on his Talk page but didn't think I should do it there as I don't think he wants my comments on his page anymore. Maunus was insisting Nisbett was mainstream and I was arguing he wasn't. After further discussions in Talk, it appeared we were using different definitions of mainstream. Maunus was defining mainstream as "probable explanation by a wide selection of scholars." and I was going by the definition "the common current thought of the majority." Going by Maunus' definition of mainstream, we would be exactly on the same page. Perhaps I did go a little too far in describing Nisbett and I will try to be more careful, but my comments on Nisbett were based on showing he doesn't meet the other definition which is "the common current though of the majority", which Maunus now did acknowledge by this definition, Nisbett is not mainstream.[3] So it appears much of this dispute was miscommunication. Since going by the definition he used, we both agree that Nisbett is mainstream and by going by the definition I gave, we both agree Nisbett is not mainstream.

Maunus is correct in that there were problems with conduct with other editors in the past who tried to completely over-weigh the extreme genetic view of Rushton/Jensen in the article and make it appear as the dominant position in the field. But never at any point that I imply or indicate that this is what I intend or want to do.

I've been consistently clear to everyone that my position is that the article should represent all significant views in the field, from the extreme genetic of Rushton/Jensen to the extreme environment of Nisbett/Flynn and everything else in between. All these positions exists in the most reputable peer reviews journals. It's an extremely contentious, disputed, and controversial field. Due weight should of course be based on the prominence of the view as expressed in reliable sources as outlined by WP:NPOV. I've maintained that the highest weight should be positions of major scientific organizations such as the American Psychological Association and modern psychology textbooks like Hunt's “Human Intelligence”. With lower weights given to the two extreme positions which would be both Rushton/Jensen and Nisbett/Flynn.

This is what some editors are now considering “advocacy”. After successfully driving out all the editors that tried to over-weigh the extreme genetic view of Rushton/Jensen, some editors have been rather persistent and determined to now over-weigh the other extreme position. Which is the 100% environmental position by Nisbett. And blatantly accuse any editor that doesn't strongly align with this agenda of being the same problematic editors of the past. It has become a witch hunt.

I apologize about this long rant. With the constant false accusations of my intentions by some editors, I just wanted to make clear what my real intentions are and what the climate in the R&I article currently is like. BlackHades (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's lost on me, because I'm entirely unfamiliar with this scientific dispute. I ask that this dispute please not be continued on my talk page. In my capacity as administrator, I can only look at conduct issues. That includes - as I mentioned to another editor - accusing others of acting in bad faith without evidence; please don't do that.  Sandstein  05:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Where did he accuse anyone of acting in bad faith? Saying that people are biased and behaving poorly is not the same thing as accusing them of acting in bad faith.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, accusing others of "driving out all the editors" that supported a certain position, or conducting "a witch hunt", does strongly imply that these others are acting with less than proper motives. (I'm not saying that accusations of this sort are always false, but that they must only be brought up, if at all, in the proper dispute resolution venues and with appropriate evidence.) At least, it's a confrontational approach that will not help all involved to build up the trust to find consensus on how to resolve this disagreement. At the end of the day, all of you will need to work together to find a stable consensus, or at least a compromise. I personally find that this is much easier if one accepts that it is much more likely that others are acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia based on the way they see things, even if one strongly disagrees with their opinion.  Sandstein  17:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a bad faith accusation and, while it may seem confrontational, it is an accurate assessment of the environment in the topic area and most other contentious topic areas. Each side tries to drive out opposing sides and paranoia is rampant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That is probably true with respect to some editors in some of our contentious areas, though by no means all. But making such sweeping accusations as a matter of routine discourse will only contribute to precisely this climate of personalization, paranoia and contentiousness, and turn such accusations into self-fulfilling prophecies. That's why they should be avoided unless, again, in the context of proper dispute resolution.  Sandstein  17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, I'm afraid I find your comment on Maunus's talk page disproportionate. Sometimes AE cases are complicated, and may not be easily reduceable to diffs. I think it is inappropriate of you to discourage people from coming to AE except in a case of requests made in bad faith or repeated incompetent ones, which I'm not seeing here. I see this as potentially having a chilling effect. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I respect this view - in cases where complicated interpersonal conflicts are intertwined with even more complicated content disputes, it's often not easy to find the right measure of what is amenable to an enforcement solution and what isn't. It's quite probable that I don't get it right sometimes. That's why I'd have appreciated it if more uninvolved administrators would have commented on the request during the several days it was open, rather than just me - this might have helped find a solution that might have been less unsatisfactory to both parties. I wasn't, and still am not, able to see one, though. Now that you're here, may I ask you to help out with processing some AE cases yourself?

In this case, though, I don't think I discouraged anyone from coming to AE. That they made a good-faith request that, in my view, was not actionable is not a problem - like you, I think only bad-faith or grossly misguided AE requests should be discouraged. The problem was that in the course of the request they made sweeping allegations of misconduct without evidence, which is to be avoided within or without AE (see, most recently, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Casting aspersions).

I also disagree with your view that "sometimes AE cases are complicated, and may not be easily reduceable to diffs". In that case they shouldn't be AE cases. That's because diffs (with appropriate explanations) are the only way for uninvolved persons like me to be able to understand and verify what happened. It's not enough to simply allege that the other person is a bad guy who does bad stuff. You've got to be able to prove it. For two reasons: First, it's not realistic to expect an individual volunteer admin, with no recourse to the whole procedural apparatus of ArbCom, to read through the entirety of novel-length talk pages and edit histories and to figure everything out for themselves. And second, if a person is being sanctioned as a result of an AE request, they have a right to a understandable explanation of why. Again, the only basis of a convincing explanation are diffs. Editors would justly complain (and there would be even more angry threads about ADMIN ABUSE!!!) if an admin were just to say: look, I've looked at this conflict in general, and I think you're a POV-pusher, you're banned. So - you're welcome to take a different approach if you decide to help out at AE, but I think that anything that can't be shown by diffs is very likely not actionable in the first place.  Sandstein  08:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of AE appeal

Sandstein, per User:TheShadowCrow's request, I have copied his appeal here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Your comments are welcome at User talk:TheShadowCrow#Topic ban violation. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I've replied there.  Sandstein  19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		My god, Sandstein, the amount of meticulous work in dredging up all the strands of TheShadowCrow's topic ban is impressive. Not to mention the succeeding analysis of whether he did or didn't violate the ban. Kudos.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, by the way, the appeals discussion should take place at AE, not on the appellant's talk page. I recommend moving it to AE:  Sandstein  06:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In re: CANYON.MID close

Hi, I saw your close and I thought it was a little snippy. "I know I've read about this" wasn't an argument, it was a simple statement that I recalled reading about it and was going to look for the source material. I found some trivial coverage in PC Mag PC User's Troubleshooting Guide O'Reilly Win98 other weird stuff from the 90s etc, I'm not necessarily interested in going to DRV with these mentions unless I can find something more substantive, but I did want to note that I thought your closing note was a bit bitey. You might not recognize my name these days, but I have been a contributor for a very long time and I know my way around a few WP: acronym-shortcuts. Andrevan@ 11:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't meant to offend you. Though, you know, it's always more advisable to post the actual references.  Sandstein  15:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Selli Engler

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Grant Cardone

Hey, Sandstein, I'm embroiled in a discussion about adding material to this article that identifies Cardone as a Scientologist. My only question to you is how WP:ARBSCI fits into this discussion. If you take a look at the discussion and at my comments here, you'll see that I can't act administratively. But I don't want to ignore what may be an important factor in the discussion, the sanctions. I've never imposed Scientology-related sanctions, but I can see from the log that you have. I'd appreciate your thoughts when you have a moment. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:ARBSCI#1 June 2012 amendment, anything related to Scientology is automatically subject to discretionary sanctions. This includes the dispute about whether text relating to Grant Cardone's alleged Scientology connection should be added or not. This doesn't mean that any particular additional restrictions apply. Rather, per WP:AC/DS it means that an uninvolved administrator may, after issuing a warning per {{uw-sanctions}}, respond to any misconduct (such as WP:BLP violations or edit-warring) by imposing any sanction they consider appropriate, such as blocks or topic bans. Is that what you meant?  Sandstein  15:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the issue some more, I've warned another editor here. The warning about reverts applies to all involved, of course.  Sandstein  15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I need to ponder some more about this before getting back into the discussion at the Cardone talk page. I may rethink some of my earlier comments agreeing to include certain material, specifically the identification of Cardone as a Scientologist and the rather peripheral material about his company promoting Scientology. BTW, my involved view of Laval is they are very disruptive. Sewell concerns me as well for the reasons expressed by Kevin Gorman. He "attacks" Cardone in March 2012. He stops editing for well over a year and then comes back to join the fray at the Cardone article once the same material is resurrected. Thimbleweed, at least on the surface, is behaving more reasonably, despite his professed involvement in Scientology topics ("This account is a legal sockpuppet for editing articles related to Scientology"). The main reason I say all this is although I may be precluded from acting administratively here, I may still express my opinions to uninvolved admins who, of course, can make their own independent judgments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not with any violations of BLP -- none of the sources included violate BLP. For heavens sakes, some of them are actual interviews with the subject who has freely talked about being a Scientologist, while the Village Voice sources include verifiable evidence that Cardone did actually write the email in question. For Bbb23 or you to threaten me with a potential block is highly inappropriate and out of line, considering that Bbb23 began this "edit war" by wholesale removal of verifiable facts without any discussion. Instead of singling me out & backing the word of another admin, I strongly suggest you don't take sides. Again, if anyone should be subject to the threat of a block, it's Bbb23 for doing what he did without discussion and falsely claiming legitimate sources as being in violation of BLP. Laval (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that you single me out, and given the behavior of Bbb23 & Gorman, you choose only to warn me & list my username in the log of warnings? This is wildly inappropriate -- Bbb23 & Kevin Gorman reverted edits without so much a hint of discussion or attempt to compromise or reach consensus, and I'm the one who gets threatened with blocks/bans & listed in the warning log? If you're trying to drive editors away from WP, this is a great way of doing that. I've shared this with Alex to get his opinion on this matter. Laval (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors can legitimately disagree about whether something violates WP:BLP or not. Evaluating sources requires editorial judgment, and opinions may differ. This is likely such a legitimate disagreement. I am not expressing an opinion at this time whether the material at issue violates the BLP policy. But considering that the BLP policy by its intent and wording incorporates the precautionary principle (that is, when in doubt, assume that questionable material should be omitted), it is in my view sanctionable misconduct to engage in edit-warring to add (much more so than to remove) material to an article about which there are good-faith, non-frivolous BLP concerns that have not yet been resolved through consensus. You should heed this warning which I give you in my capacity as an administrator who is not involved in this dispute.  Sandstein  12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Log_of_warnings_about_discretionary_sanctions - if Bbb23 & Gorman are not likewise added to this, my name should be removed. Especially considering that Gorman even stalked me to Michael Doven (where he continued to revert me, despite the inclusion of sources -- I ended up adding even more sources and he has again removed sourced material without discussion). So there is clearly something wrong in singling me out. Laval (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The warnings log is not a sanction, but only a practical convenience for tracking who has been warned as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings. If you believe that administrative action is required with respect to others, you can file a request to that effect at WP:AE, where you will be expected to supply appropriate evidence in the form of diffs.  Sandstein  13:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Game of Thrones ratings

Template:Game of Thrones ratings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)