User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/January

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Swadhinata Home Box

Hey Sandstein, recently you deleted Swadhinata Home Box per deletion request. I am was the creator of that article. So I'm requesting to userfy that deleted article.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To which end? Sandstein 16:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To User:Pratyya Ghosh/Swadhinata Home Box. Which was to deleted after the main article got deleted.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 07:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean, what do you want to do with it? Sandstein 09:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I'm gonna improve it in my user space. Things can update in the flow of time. And in future will leave it for a review. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm restoring the content. Sandstein 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Senkaku Islands

An editor has asked for a Move review of Senkaku Islands. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Lvhis (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Re your closure decision

Hello Sandstein,

I was supposed to have this discussion with you couple days before, but I had an unfortunate accident in my real life that I could not responded your closure of that Request Move until today. I want to discuss with you on your closure decision before I request a WP:MR.

First of all, there was quite obvious consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines. Although there were 5 users insisted on retention of this current title, their arguments lacked good quality as some of them based on cherry-picking, misleading information, wrong search results from wrong search methods. Nine users suggested to change the current titles based on good quality of arguments of comments in line with wp policies and guidelines including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE, WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, and WP:NPOV. You closure opinion obviously ignored the quality of arguments and then ignored the consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" should be changed. Please pay enough attention that "Senkaku Islands" is not an English name but a local non-English name.

You listed three your findings in your closure decision. Except the 1st one, two of the three are not objectively reflecting the true fact in the move discussion.

Regarding suggested title "Pinnacle Islands", the main reason in discussion is this is an English name and currently still being used. The two local non-English name "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" have equal "POV" problem and either one cannot override WP:POVTITLE, their "most common use" in English have been canceled by each other, you should not compare the "Pinnacle Islands" with either of the two non-English names in terms of "most common use". You should consider what said in WP:COMMONNAME "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" and WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. Even looking at the arguments or comments about "against ..." from this "tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community", compared with "against retention of 'Senkaku Islands'" or with "against moving to 'Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands' or 'Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands'", the "against moving to 'Pinnacle Islands'" is the least one, which were from 6 users of 15 participants and 4 of these 6 were those who insisted on retention of "Senkaku Islands" but only 2 users who oppose to use the current title "Senkaku Islands".
Regarding "Diaoyu Islands has not been proposed (to any discernible extent) in this discussion", that because I and most of participants clearly realized "Diaoyu" same as "Senkaku" is non-English local name and has same extent POV problem. We honestly and sincerely obey wp policies and guidelines. If "Diaoyu Islands" was the current title, you would have seen it had been in very discernible extent mentioned in this discussion. I hardly believe that you may imply a moving request to title "Diaoyu Islands" should be taken.
You conclusion sentence "the article(s) will continue to use the current title, "Senkaku Islands", because that title has been stable since 2010 ..." is not in line with the argument history. The so called "stable" is purely due to forced "move protection". The facts that the title arguments since using "Senkaku Islands" underwent to Mediation and Arbitration themselves have strongly proven the current title is actually very unstable. The current title has damaged and will keep damaging the merit and reliability of Wikipedia.

The last words is regarding your warning on this moving discussion. You said "discussion contains quite a bit of nastiness, edit-warring, inappropriate language and confrontational attitude by various participants", but who was the starter or initiator of this kind of nastiness? Who ~~did such~~ misbehaved so most? It is user Phoenix7777. He did so with such tricks for a obvious purpose to disrupt this discussion and to make it looked like "non-consensus". He got what he wants now as you showed your partiality for him. Your such partiality is not fair and makes your closure statement not neutral or fair and more like an involved discussion.

Based all of above, may I request you reconsider your closure and re-open the Request Move. Thank you. --Lvhis (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. For the following reasons, I decline to undo my assessment of the requested move discussion:

Even if I were to agree with you that there was "consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines" (which I have not evaluated because it is not relevant for the purpose of the request), such consensus would not translate into consensus to move the article to a particular alternative title. But that consensus would be required to actually move the article. Because there was no such consensus, which you don't seem to contest, I closed the move request as "no consensus".
I don't see how your statements concerning the title "Diaoyu Islands" call my closure into doubt.
The article title "Senkaku Islands" is stable in the sense that it has been the title of the article for a long time without interruptions. That, and not the reasons for the stability, is what matters when considering the outcome of a "no consensus" for a move request: whether to revert to a previous stable title (which there isn't in this case) or to maintain the current stable (albeit contested) title.
The mere fact that your request for arbitration enforcement against Phoenix7777 didn't result in the outcome you wanted doesn't make me biased against you, as far as I can tell. You may want to review the AE discussion again, where the other administrators who commented agreed that the request could be closed wthout action following the closure of the move request.

Regards, Sandstein 11:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the reply. Consensus that current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines is the base for the RM and this does be relevant to the purpose of the request. Otherwise, there is no need to have such RM at all. You should evaluate this before you decided to close it and how to close it, but unfortunately you did not, so this is the 1st defect of your closure. The 2nd, although the initial proposed alternative title of this RM was "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands", as user: PBS commented "... at its best the RM process is a consensus building exercise, this means that during the process of the discussion people are encouraged to change their initial views."[1] And some users including me changed our initial views and agreed that "Pinnacle Islands" can be a good title if a slashed dual name technically is hardly facilitated. I like a term user PBS used: "accepted by most but loved by none" so that there was likewise consensus on "Pinnacle Islands" during discussion. But unfortunately again in your closure statement you concluded as opposite and your point was not in line with the fact of the discussion. Your reply above did not answer what I stated yesterday about the title "Pinnacle Islands". Given the fact the title of this article and its related articles has been disputed for a long time, a closing admin who is really responsible to and cares enough for Wikipedia's merit and reliability should first establish that there is a consensus that the current title is inappropriate, and then choose out of the best of the two options presented (as user: Shrigley suggested[2]). The 3rd, you still use "for a long time without interruptions" as your reason that the title "Senkaku Islands" is "stable", but you did not answer my challenge that this "without interruptions" or "stable" is only due to the title under "move protection" but dispute on it never stopped except a period of applying a "restriction for discussion on title issue" like a censorship. Your argument for the current title is "stable" cannot be stood. The last, "a bit of nastiness" in that discussion was clearly started by user Phoenix7777 with his edit on 22 December[3] that violated Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning. If you and other admin blame me that I and other users should have been more tolerant to such misbehavior, it would have more or less sounded reasonable though not perfect, but user Phoenix7777's misbehavior and tricks to disrupt the discussion should be at least clearly investigated and warned. He knows this topic is under discretionary sanctions clearly and still misbehaved so daringly, seemed he felt he could get backed. As you declined to undo your assessment of the requested move discussion, I will regretfully have to request a Move Review. Regards, --Lvhis (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lvhis I became aware of this conversation because you have linked my name in your response. I suggest that you stop flogging a dead horse. The decision has been made and I think made within policy. I do not agree with all the aspects of Sandstein's closing summary, but Sandstein is correct in saying that no clear consensus for a move was obtained. Because editors have better things to do that endlessly discuss contentious, article titles and because when an admin closes a contentious debate they always get people complaining, once you have complained on the admins talk page and they do not act on your complain then as you have done, but only 'if you think you have a procedural issue, then open a [Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. Personally I think you are wrong to have done so as there was nothing wrong procedurally with Sandstein's close. The correct course of action is to wait at least six months (as consensus can change) and then consider opening another RM. However as you opened this RM I would suggest that unless you are confident that you will gain a consensus for a move you leave it at least a year before you start a new RM for "Senkaku Islands". -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sandstein

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - to you as well! Sandstein 10:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Flula Borg

With respect, I'm very disappointed that this article was deleted so suddenly. I've been asking for feedback on it literally for weeks and got none. I tried to make it it clear on the discussion page that I can provide other references if the ones I used were unsuitable, but I wasn't given an opportunity to fix the problems between the time the feedback was given and the time the page was deleted.

I'm 95% certain I can bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards if I'm given the opportunity. Is there any chance of getting it undeleted and allowing me to at least attempt to fix the problems that concern you and/or the other editors in question? I'm absolutely behind keeping Wikipedia accountable and verifiable and will never dispute deletion of an article that doesn't meet that standard, but I don't feel that I was given a fair chance on this one because of the lack of timely feedback.

Either way, thank you for your help. Have a good week. -- edi(talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I agree that there was plenty of time to improve the article; I only mean to say that I didn't have time to improve it after receiving the feedback that I'd requested repeatedly some time before that. However, I do appreciate your help and I will get to work on it immediately.

Also, I don't want to be a nuisance but I've never been in this situation before and I need some guidance: What should my next step be once I feel that the article is ready for further review?

Thanks again for everything. Have a good week. -- edi(talk) 16:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If the article clearly satisfies the concerns raised at AfD (non-notability), because it includes substantial coverage in reliable sources not already discussed at AfD, you can directly restore it. If you are unsure, you should ask at WP:DRV to prevent a speedly deletion. Sandstein 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Quebec school board elections

Hello. I'm CJCurrie, and I've written several articles on Canadian politics, including politics in Quebec. I was absent from Wikipedia from December 19 until today; during my absence, an afd took place concerning 27 articles that I created concerning school board elections in Quebec. I see that you were the closing admin for this afd, and that a decision was made to delete all 27 of the pages in question.

I would like to request that you reconsider your decision to delete these pages. My reasons are as follows:

(i) There was little participation in the afd. Only two contributors took part in the discussion, apart from the nominator.

(ii) The afd took place at a time when many Wikipedians (myself included) were on vacation. My access to the internet was limited from December 19 until today. Had I been able to participate in this discussion prior to its closure, I would have raised several points in support of retaining at least some of the articles under consideration.

(iii) The afd was not listed on discussion forums pertaining to Canadian politics. Several editors who may have wished to express an opinion were likely unaware of its existence.

(iv) The afd covered 27 different elections over a significant stretch of time, but was listed under the name of one relatively minor election.

The afd was entitled, "Articles for deletion/Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election, 2003." The elections in question took place between 1973 and 2007, and they received extremely divergent levels of coverage.

The afd's short discussion section was focused primarily on two questions: (i) whether or school board elections are inherently notable, and (ii) whether the school board elections in question received coverage beyond a purely local level. Without here offering an opinion on the first question, I'll note that some of the elections in question did receive widespread coverage.

The 2003 Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election was a relatively minor event in Quebec's political history, but the same cannot be said of school commission elections in the 1970s (and, to a lesser extent, the 1980s). The nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and the elections that took place during this period received attention that was both extensive and national (and scholarly: Henry Milner's The Long Road to Reform includes an academic analysis of Montreal school board elections in the 1970s). My view is that, regardless of whether or not one believes school board elections are inherently notable, the mass deletion removed articles about some events that were notable on their own terms.

I do not think this particular afd was the proper forum for an omnibus decision concerning all of the elections in question. For this specific reason, I am requesting that you undelete the 26 "other" pages, such that they may be addressed if and as necessary on a case-by-case basis.

I would also request that you temporarily undelete the 2003 CSMB election page such that a more complete discussion may take place.

Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I can, in part, understand the reasons why you ask me for this. However, based on my experience with AfDs, most if not all of these articles would have been deleted anyway for lack of notability, no matter where the discussions were advertised or who was notified. Taking one typical, random example, Commission scolaire Jérôme-Le Royer election, 1980 contained nothing but a table with the result of the votes for each districts (with each candidate receiving on the order of a few hundred votes) and a single reference to a newspaper as a source. There's no discussion of why this particular election had any importance to anybody, and no references to reliable sources discussing that importance. Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, Wikipedia isn't just a dumping ground for raw data. On that basis alone, regardless of notability concerns, the article would have needed to be deleted.

I quite believe you when you say that the nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major (if only local or regional) political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, but in this case it is that broader topic (if there are sources for it) that should be the subject of an article, with the election results summarized at an appropriate level of detail, not necessarily individual elections. In addition, individual editors or projects are not entitled to be informed about any particular deletion proposal; that would run counter to WP:OWN and might even give rise to concerns of canvassing.

For these reasons, I'll not restore and relist all of these articles. But if there is any specific article that you believe would benefit from an individual discussion because there are reliable sources discussing that particular election in some detail, such that the article about it could pass WP:GNG, I'm ready to restore and relist that specific article. Sandstein 09:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if it looks as if I'm butting in, but because school and school related articles are on my watchlist, I would like to mention that although I missed the AfD due to being absent for a few days, I would also have voted for deletion. In fact, I may not have voted but have chosen instead to close it, in which case the result would have been the same as Sandstein's. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize that my initial request may have seemed unusual, and I hope that I can clarify a few details with this follow-up post.

First, you are quite right to assert that many of the articles under discussion did not provide evidence of notability for the elections in question. This is not (in most cases) because such evidence does not exist or cannot be found. It's rather because I did not foresee that the notability of these pages would be called into question and, for this reason, did not believe that it would be problematic to create the pages in stub form, with the intent of adding more detail at a later date.

My view is that most of these pages could be upgraded to "proper" entries without terribly much additional effort. (In passing, I could note that one of the pages capable of improvement is Commission scolaire Jérôme-Le Royer election, 1980, the topic of which was discussed in some detail in Montreal's English- and French-language papers.)

This is not, however, the main reason why I requested that you reconsider your decision. My main procedural concern was and remains that this particular afd was not the right forum for an omnibus decision on the notability of entries for school board elections.

My own view was, and remains, that the results of Quebec's school board elections are inherently notable. School commissions in Canada are entrusted with significant powers of governance, and it is my view that the results of school board elections are inherently within the public interest. I do not believe that providing interested readers with this information violates WP's policy against "excessive listings of statistics."

Others may disagree with this contention, and it is not my intention to debate this point in detail at present. I will simply repeat that I do not believe that this afd was the correct place to determine consensus on the matter — especially in light of (i) the fact that the afd was listed in the name of a single, relatively minor election, and (ii) the limited nature of the discussion.

It is for this reason that I requested the un-deletion of the other 26 pages.

If you do not believe that this is the correct course of action, then I would request that you un-delete and re-list the following articles: Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1973, Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1977, Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1980. These are the most individually notable of the elections in question, and it's my belief that they would qualify for inclusion even within the spirit of the recent afd discussion.

There is also another possibility that I would like to raise. Even prior to the listing of this afd, I had considered amalgamating several of these articles into centralized entries arranged by calendar year (e.g., Quebec school board elections, 1973 or Montreal-area school board elections, 1973). This approach would have the advantage of permitting the inclusion of more detailed and relevant information about each year's electoral cycle and of providing a repository for appropriate statistical information.

At present, this approach strikes me as a possible means of resolving this situation — my only concern is that it could be interpreted as a means of sidestepping the afd decision. As the closing admin, can you provide any assurance that the creation of such pages would not be restricted by the afd?

Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with your procedural concerns, and decline undeleting the articles on these grounds. AfD is the proper forum for deletion requests. Collective nominations are not prohibited by its rules, and are relatively frequent. Any concerns that the articles should have been discussed individually should have been brought up during the deletion discussion, not afterwards. If you disagree with this assessment, you can appeal the closure at WP:DRV.

As concerns the three articles you would like relisted, can you please provide references to independent reliable sources covering them, so that I can ascertain whether these articles would have at least a remote chance of passing AfD on individual notability grounds?

Concerning the creation of new articles, any new articles that contain essentially only the content of the deleted articles (i.e., election results) would likely be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. If they contain additional, sourced encyclopedic text, they would likely require a new deletion discussion. Sandstein 10:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this may be a moot point at this stage, but I'll further clarify that I am not questioning the general validity of the principle behind collective afd nominations — I simply believe it was inappropriate to have had all 27 pages listed in the name of a single, not-entirely-representative example.

I will require some time to compile a list of independent reliable sources pertaining to the three pages listed above. I am not planning to create any new pages with essentially only the same text as those recently deleted, and I will take your response to mean that you do not regard the pages suggested in my previous post as prohibited by the recent afd decision.

Finally, I'll note that I'm quite aware that the recently deleted pages would not be of great importance to most readers. This is, of course, an entirely separate concern from whether or not the materials contained therein were encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very few Canadian School Board elections are "encyclopedic" in any way. Something serious would have to take place besides just the election for any of them ES &L 10:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Martin MacNeill‎ closure

Any opinion or suggestions for a) deletion or b)improvement of the article? --Lexein (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. I can only find that there is no consensus that this person is insufficiently notable to be covered in an article. What to do with the article now is up to the editors interested in it. Sandstein 18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; it'll all work out somehow. --Lexein (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sandstein!

Happy New Year!

Hello Sandstein:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you, and to you as well! Sandstein 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction Ban on Estlandia

Any chance I can get the interaction ban to include me? I was unavailable during the AC, so I couldn't speak up. His irrational behavior towards me on the United Poland article, including his contrived edit war, included edit comments directed toward me such as please stop unjustified removals. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too), (together against porn and filth!), (@ Ajh1492 - removing sourced stuff and replacing it with unsourced propaganda? Very constructive indeed!), Stop adding unsourced agitprop! and Rv absurd edit. a 2000 (!!!) source for a party founded in 2012?. I'd personally like to get the block removed from my record since I think the related admins only superficially studied the problem and responded to Estlandia's specious counter-charge. I tried to bring up the fact that neither was 3RR violated plus they never took into account the personal attacks, nor even looked at Talk:United Poland to see the discussion to attempt to engage Estlandia. Instead someone who was being rather rudely treated and verbally brutalized with personal attacks was swept up in a knee-jerk reaction by two admins. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Estlandia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't edited much since being sanctioned. If they engage in problematic conduct towards you, you can request sanctions at WP:AE. But there does not seem to be an urgent need for admin action at this time. Sandstein 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of RoslynSKP

Sandstein, can I ask you a couple of questions about the recent AE block you carried out on RoslynSKP? I'm asking not as an arbitrator, but as someone who commented at the recent amendment request (I recused in the case itself). I made two comments at the amendment request, one here and one here. The questions I had was how you decided on the block length of two weeks and whether you were aware that this would be RoslynSKP's first ever block (is it that common for editors to end up at AE without having been blocked before)? I think you came up with the block length from the AE discussion. I'm not familiar enough with RoslynSKP's editing history to know how often she edits or when she is likely to become aware of the block, but would you, as the blocking admin, be willing to keep an eye on her talk page for the next two weeks? People react in various ways when they are blocked for the first time, and as I said at the amendment request, a lot depends on her response to this block. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I commented on the reasons for the block length in the AE thread - in brief, the enforcement remedy says that first blocks may be for up to a month, which suggests to me that half that time should be appropriate for a first infraction, even more so considering that RoslynSKP continued to infringe the restrictions applying to her even after the request for enforcement was made. I've watchlisted her talk page and will respond to any unblock requests. In general, as with any block, I'm ready to lift the block if I am convinced that the blocked editor understands what they did wrong and that they won't do it again (which, in this case, should be easy considering the now-active topic ban). Sandstein 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. It is good to get a timely response (on a substantive point, would you lifting the block re-suspend the topic ban as mentioned under 'community processes' in the decision?). I guess the arbitrators are waiting to see what happens if anything, though I was kind of hoping some of them might have responded to the points I raised. My WWI edits (not that numerous) are mainly in the Western Front topic area, so I'm not that familiar with the Middle East topic area, but I can see that the relatively inflexible way the case remedies were drafted and voted through and enforced means that there is now the potential to lose over the next nine months a huge amount of content editing relating to the Middle Eastern theatre of that war (even giving AE admins the flexibility to impose a shorter length topic ban would have been better than what has happened).

To expand slightly on what I said at the amendment request, I'm not sure if you (or indeed the arbitrators) are aware, but this has all put a visible strain on the MILHIST co-ordinators (that was evident from the tone of some of the comments at the AE request and the co-ordinators talk page). If any of the co-ordinators are reading this (I'll ping Nick-D and HJ Mitchell who commented at the request), they have my sympathies, though I am puzzled that this was apparently the first ever block or topic ban imposed in relation to this dispute (surely something less draconian could have been tried first before arbitration?) - if I'd realised this during the case I would have said something. FWIW, I have plans to suggest to MILHIST that they go ahead with increased co-ordination of the WWI topic area, but as I said to Kirill here the timing isn't great (his reply). Trouble is, the timing's not really getting any better. Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, good question. The decision says that "If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension". I don't know if a successful appeal to the blocking administrator would count. Based on the remedy's reference to the page WP:GAB, which describes unblock requests to other administrators, that may not have been intended, but the reference to that page may have been in error because the block is an arbitration enforcement block that can't be appealed through ordinary channels. I think that this question would require a request for clarification to the Committee if the block were ever to be lifted based on a convincing request by RoslynSKP.

As regards the editing conditions in WWI-related articles or in the military history wikiproject, I'm sorry to say that I'm not at all familiar with them and so I can't comment about that. For this reason, I also don't have an opinion about whether the Committee's sanction was appropriate. Sandstein 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As I noted at the request for amendment, while I initially didn't support blocking or topic banning RoslynSKP for the edit warring, the blatant violations of her restrictions (which, sadly, forms part of a clear pattern of pushing against the restrictions and continuing her unhelpful behaviour) changed my mind and I now think that the topic ban is appropriate as it seems to be the only way to get her to move on (and hence to save the other editors working on these topics from continued grief). I'd have no problem with her asking for this to be lifted in a few months if she can demonstrate productive and collaborative editing elsewhere: the best outcome would be for RoslynSKP to be able to edit this topic (in which she has real expertise) but without the incredibly unhelpful behaviour which has made this a miserable field for other editors (who also have considerable expertise) to work in. I agree that more use should have been made of the admin processes before this went to ArbCom, but here we are. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry, Sandstein, for continuing this here.) I get what you are saying, Nick, and the impetus for change absolutely has to come from RoslynSKP herself, but something still feels wrong here. I may be old school in that I'm used to an editor's initial block being short and sharp (a day or two), to make them realise that things are getting serious. Two weeks for a first block just sits uneasily with me. Something has gone wrong when someone can get involved in disputes, get all the way to arbitration, through a case, and out the other side, without ever having been blocked, and then be blocked for two weeks as their first block. Somewhere along the line they got the message that it was OK to argue (and engage in low-level edit warring and reverting) because there were no consequences for their actions (the same could be said of some of the language used at that AE request - I know the MILHIST co-ordinators are all excellent editors, but for many the lasting memory will be the offputting language used there).

The question of the userspace drafts does need consideration, because I'd hate to see an argument at AE over whether it is OK for someone coming off a block like this to work on such drafts or not. The aim for everyone here should be to get those drafts worked on and published so that readers of Wikipedia can benefit from them. The final point I want to make is that, like Newyorkbrad at the amendment request, you make the common misconception of thinking that she can ask "for this [topic ban] to be lifted in a few months". The case pages explicitly say that she cannot appeal earlier than nine months. This is the inflexibility I was talking about earlier. I've seen it in other arbitration cases and I know from experience why that sort of inflexibility is built into cases (to prevent excessive and premature appeals), but I think that was a mistake here. Anyway, I'll leave this now, as the only way anything will change here is if we see change from RoslynSKP when (if) she returns from her block. The ball really is, as they say, in her court. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:

I'm replying on your talk page. Sandstein 13:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sandstein, your decision is totally unacceptable. You are killing my motivation for contribution for Wikipedia without knowing more closely the situation. And what does "everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" mean? What does Armenia has to do with it? I have zero interest in Armenia or Armenian related articles. I am improving the Georgian related articles and all I do is to contribute, improve them. Check the history of the Georgian alphabet, all I did was I reverted it to the balanced and neutral version as it was back then before it was changed into biased version. I've done nothing wrong to have this kind of sanction from any administrator. Jaqeli (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:Gm545

I saw Gm545's unblock request, and while he does seem more experienced than a genuinely new editor, I didn't see any problems with his edits. In fact his AfD comments are better than average, I'd say. Thus I'm tempted to assume good faith and unblock; at worst that'll just give him some WP:ROPE. Any objections? Any evidence of disruption or strange intents I missed? Huon (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't any disruption caused by their edits, as such. The problem is that their edits betray far too much knowledge of Wikipedia process to be those of a new editor, which they claim to be. Their edits focus on AfD almost exclusively, also highly atypical of new editors. This behavioral evidence indicates to me that they are either an alternate account used in a manner incompatible with WP:SOCK to influence the deletion process, or they are a banned or blocked editor evading their sanction via sockpuppetry. There's plenty of those around. For this reason I recommend against unblocking the account. Sandstein 20:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

While that is certainly possible, blocking should be a last resort, after we have more conclusive evidence than this. --Rs chen 7754 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Just wanted to point you to this relevant essay here - Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Also, I think AGF applies here, so we should have just welcomed the user.

Also, please note that any editors making a WP:CLEANSTART are not required to make any prior disclosures.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)‎

Please explain how you reached a no consensus on this. Majority of Keeps gave no reason within policy to keep, just said Keep. Votes for deletion are higher than those for keep, and the majority of deletes voiced policy concerns regarding the list. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained at some length in the closing rationale why I concluded that there was no consensus to delete the article. As you probably know, there are no votes in deletion discussions. It's true that many "keep" opinions were weak, but so were many "delete" opinions. Accordingly, I focused on the question of whether there was any compelling (rather than "merely" convincing) deletion rationale that might override the default "no consensus" outcome. I found that not (quite) to be the case. Sandstein 20:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, and will take it to deletion review. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I take no position whatsoever on how you closed this discussion, but I appreciate your making a decision and writing a summary of the AfD. I expect that what you did will leave many people on all sides of the debate unsatisfied because controversial issues can be difficult to address. It is my view that you made an earnest and competent attempt to do what needed to be done. I would encourage anyone who disagrees with you to respect the effort you shared with the community and take any further action as they like. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to try your best to execute administrative actions. Thank you a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Sandstein 21:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a review of the non deletion here Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, could you either take action as the AfD closer or comment on the discussion about returning names to this list? It feels like it's an end-run around the close (yes it happened before the close but...). There is a discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- nm, looks like it has resolved itself. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion by Jaqeli

Hello Sandstein. Please kindly note that User Jaqeli has recently violated his AA2 topic ban by editing [4] a controversial article on Armenia, Mithridates of Armenia. The article does not cite any sources and is written in a tendentious manner. Thanks. Hablabar (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned this on their talk page. Sandstein 23:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal

[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your statement there, are you saying I am still allowed to remove obvious BLP vios? If so I will happily withdraw the appeal. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because based on your edit-warring it appears possible that you will consider many edits you disagree with to be an "obvious" policy violation even if they are in fact not. You may however point any problematic edits out to others, and if they are that obvious then others will quickly revert them. Sandstein 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

sanction clarifications

generic question about sanctions. For Darkness Shines, is the sanction you placed considered a 0RR? Are any edits that remove content then prohibited, or only reverts of recent additions? Is there a page that outlines what list of sanctions are appropriate? (IE, did you just pick a sanction from a menu that may or may not have criteria for use, or are admins allowed to invent sanctions at will for topics that have discretionary sanctions applied? ) I am not attempting to criticize your action, just trying to make sure I understand the policies and process. (I am deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom, so want to make sure I know what the new rules are going to look like)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I invented the sanction myself. WP:AC/DS allows admins to do this. How exactly it works is something I don't see any reason to go into more detail now, considering that it doesn't affect you. Sandstein 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are good reasons to know the details of how you manage to create new rules out of thin air regardless of whether or not that new rule affects certain parties. Accountability is rather important concept, you know... at least to those of us who er... live in the "outside world". :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi 174.89.163.195, accountability is important, but perhaps you might like to sign into your regular account when asking for such clarifications? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My participation here is just temporary and I can't be bothered to look for my long-lost account credentials. :)

And you misunderstood me. I don't care to know his reasons for inventing some rules. Rather, I was amused by the reason he gave for not providing any reasons. Either way, he is entitled to do whatever he wants and I am free to comment however I like. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

From WP:AC/DS :

Authorization

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Though we usually stick to well known ones, the wording specifically enables admins to adapt to circumstance in a particular case.

Those are all appealable, and newly invented sanctions that don't make sense will likely fail peer review, but that doesn't prevent admins from making them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's better. Citing that good o' wall o'text is always better than saying there's no need to cite anything. Otherwise, it's simply impolite, don't you think? :)

But anyway, Wikipedia's rules are all pretty labile, from my experience. Most of your rule pages are editable by everyone and yet many are followed to the word akin to how an orthodox priest would follow the holy bible. So I would be surprised if there isn't any mechanism for admins to invent laws on the fly. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We do have WP:IAR - an official policy that tells us to ignore the rules if necessary to improve or maintain the encyclopedia... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@174.89.163.195: So you're saying that you're not a regular editor with an account and that you just happened to discover this discussion by pure chance? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Re Georgewiliamherbert: And what are the rules on ignoring the rules if necessary? Are there any rules that ignore the rules on ignoring the rules?

Re A Quest For Knowledge: I was a regular a long time ago who, by chance, to look up some dude's talk page which happened to link to a topic/discussion I once took part in. And then I saw Sandstein making some comments there with his fluffy blue siggy and followed to his talk page, which then I came across this topic because I am one nosy individual who likes to poke holes in places wherever they are found. And in case you are suspicious - I don't have an axe to grind with Sandstein and I hardly know him other than the fact that he has this blue box around his name. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way AQFK, I am a dev too. Howdy! :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

You may want to take a look at this.[6] I was not previously familiar with WP:REMOVED, but it appears that this is violation of bullet point 1:

"Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a guideline, not a policy. I have the right to clear my talk page. I have requested clarification on this at ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Before acting, please take a look at this diff.[7] Apparently, there was a conscious decision to remove AE enforced sanctions from the wording, but the editors who made the change didn't realize that "any other notice regarding an active sanction" would be interpreted to include AE enforced sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to the removal and have made an ANI comment to that effect. Sandstein 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thanks, I appreciate your response. As I said, I was not previously aware of WP:REMOVED, but on the surface, it appeared to be clear violation. Thankfully, Writ Keeper did their homework and discovered that previous discussion. Had I known that, I would not have brought this to your attention. I do apologize for that. On the bright side, hopefully this will lead to improvement of WP:REMOVED so other editors don't make the same mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The content has been restored by User:Toddst1. Removing such warnings and notices from user pages is indeed improper. Other editors need to be able to see what sanctions are currently active, and leaving them there will help to remind the editor in question that their behavior needs to improve. When the sanctions/blocks/restrictions/etc. expire, the message can be removed. If they don't want a badge of shame on their pages, then they need to shape up or ship out. Uncollaborative behavior is not desired here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Criterium??

Twice in your excellent close of the AFD on scientists opposed to the mainstream view of global warming you used the word "criterium." I suggest that the word you want in future postings is actually "criterion." Regards. Edison (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sandstein 09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

EU Procurement Threshold Levels

Hi Sandstein Re removal of my update of threshold levels for EU Public Procurement that you removed as anti-copyright. The values, terminology and exceptions are specific and therefore cannot be reworded. Can you advise how I can update the entry with the new thresholds without it being a violation of copyright? Regards, Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavidson79 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The data is not copyrightable, but the way it is presented is, such as the wording of explanatory notes, or the structure of the tables. You may not simply copy the content of other websites, but you must present the data in your own words. You should also omit the amounts in GBP, as the article relates to all of the EU, not only the UK. Sandstein 10:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good close

This bloody article again. I didn't opine (as I protected it) but I suspect it's one of those that's eventually going to get deleted. Not being familiar, I couldn't work out if it was a POV article designed to disprarage those who disagree with climate change as nutcases, or a POV article trying to point out that there are many respected scientists who don't agree. Either way, it's rubbish. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite understand the purpose of the list either, but then many people simply like lists of almost anything. It seems the discussion will go on for at least a year or so more. Sandstein 11:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For an article that maybe should not exist, it is well written. The creators of the article might have hoped that it would cast doubt on the views of people they consider unwilling to accept scientific evidence. But the first impression given by the article (with its long lists of scientific credentials) is that the GW doubters constitute a respectable, sensible party. Certainly your close sets a high standard for how these things should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sungenis

The edit summary on the above says that you closed the discussion as no consensus. It still appears on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity as having been relisted. There is currently no tag on the AFD page. You seem to have changed your mind in the course of closing the discussion, with the result that something is wrong. Could you please sort this out? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The closure has no technical problems that I can see. As to what is listed on any deletion sorting lists, that's not part of the AfD process proper and I've never concerned myself with it when closing AfDs. Sandstein 16:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

am I

Allowed to restore comments or editprotect templates added by myself to a talk page which another editor removed? Without even mentioning or asking me in violation of TPG. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert restriction applies only to articles, not to talk pages. However, if you edit-war on talk pages, your restriction may be extended. Sandstein 09:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The template in question was placed in violation of Wikipedia:Edit_requests#General_considerations, which requires that a consensus is reached before the templates' inclusion. There is no such consensus yet on Talk:James Delingpole. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss?

I've heard your arguments, thanks. Further discussion, if needed, should take place at WP:AE. Sandstein 12:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am sorry to object to your last AE comment (I usually agree with your judgement), however I simply do not think that you can declare "fringe" any source based on its citation (and use this as a reason for sanctions). There are lots of sources with zero citation index in bibliographic databases. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not considering this person's work fringe science because of its position on a citation index. I'm considering it fringe science because it is a self-published book that claims to disprove Albert Einstein's work but has not received any sort of mention in any source - scientific, reliable or otherwise - that can be found. It's hard to get more fringe-y. Sandstein 19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What you are talking about is merely a convenience link to English translation. This is actual source/reference, and I have no idea how often it was quoted in other Russian sources, for example. Most important, this book does not disprove anything in SRT. To the contrary, it explains (in one of possible ways) why SRT is so true. Speaking about your proposed sanction, please realize: this is equal to permanent outing of my account. I can promise never edit this page about Ives again, never file AE requests again, or admit an error of judgement and have a wikibreak for a month, possibly enforced by a self-imposed block. That's OK. However, I most probably will never edit here again after receiving such editing restriction. Please realize that... My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't read Russian, but considering that nowadays almost all serious physics publications except those aimed at laypeople are in English, the lack of any citations or other reaction whatsoever in English to the English translation, in addition to the extraordinary claims apparently advanced by the author, are, for me, sufficient grounds to determine that the work represents fringe science that should not form the basis of any of our content about science. As to your outing concerns, I don't see how the proposed restriction could make you identifiable - considering that the author apparently died in 2006, that's probably not who you are. Your proposed alternative remedies wouldn't help, as they are not suited to prevent what I think is the problem here - you edit-warring to use non-reliable sources as the basis of articles. However, if associating you with this author is a problem for you, an alternative sanction could be a restriction from using any source as the basis of article content about theories or hypotheses in physics if that source is not a peer-reviewed publication or a textbook in English by a reputable scientific publisher. Sandstein 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What he is talking about are not extraordinary claims, but physical explanations of several well known relativistic effects in framework of electrodynamics (in full agreement with SRT). Do you really believe that "lack of any citations or other reaction whatsoever in English" invalidates any source? Maybe ~20-30% of scientific papers published in English have zero citations. Surely, arbitrators did not mean to count all such publications "fringe", would not you agree? And I doubt that official WP:RS policy considers sources with zero citation unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sandstein: My very best wishes may be using an idiosyncratic definition of "outing" to mean that they will be "out" of Wikipedia (i.e. no longer editing Wikipedia). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) ( Thanks, that makes sense. Sandstein 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC))

As explained above, it's not a matter of (only) citation numbers, but the English version being a self-published work (apparently no serious scientific publisher was interested in the translation?) combined with an absolute lack of any reaction by the scientific public whatsoever (no media articles, reviews etc.), and the extraordinary claims the work apparently makes (by which I mean, claims that are so novel or peculiar that one would expect some sort of response by the scientific community if the claims were even remotely plausible). Sandstein 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, most claims by this book are not at all novel. And here I would like to quote my "content opponent", Urgent01 [8]. He tells: "There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references." I do not necessarily agree. That is what he thinks. According to him, this is simply another book on the subject, and there are many hundred books on SRT. So, it comes at no surprise that a self-published English translation of a book, which is possibly well known in Russia, did not bring much attention. So, a non-notable book? Yes, maybe. A fringe? No. Also keep in mind that widely cited publications in science are those about discoveries. This is a book on teaching/presenting SRT, and the overall approaches to teaching Physics in US and Soviet Union are very different. Yet another reason for the book not be cited. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I just checked: [9] 33,000 hits in Russian internet. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So, here are my arguments: (a) my edits like this (diffs you provided on AE) actually insert a reference to the Russian book (please check), and the link to self-published English translation was provided merely as a "convenience link"; (b) this Russian book is not "fringe", and therefore such edits are not covered by the "fringe science" discretionary sanctions (I just checked the case, and the teaching approach described in the book hardly belongs even to alternative formulations); (c) I did edit war, just as my content "opponent", which might be a reason for a block if the matter was timely brought to 3RR noticeboard (there was no 3RR violation by anyone). I apologize for that and promise be more careful in the future; (d) I do not see any evidence of systematic COI problems on my part - I edited a lot of materials about people I knew or related to my work and never had any problems (that was the first episode, which could be interpreted this way). I would highly appreciate if we could discuss these matters here prior to issuing any sanctions. At the very least, please tell me here in advance if you are going to proceed with sanctions, even after receiving this clarification. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the heads up that this topic is sanctionable. The article, as it stands now, is quite different from my first few edits (more sources, sort of "sugarcoated" less direct/controversial claims). Is it still objectionable, in your opinion? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, which article? How does this concern me? Sandstein 09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't concern you per se, but you did appear to take interest on the article of James Delingpole on AE. I was just curious on whether you thought that sanctions could be applied to the authors of the current version (myself included). --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't say. I'm not familiar with the topic or the sources. If there are any remaining problems with the article, they will need to be resolved through the normal dispute resolution process. Sandstein 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal

I have filed an appeal against the sanction you imposed here Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)