User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/October

Discretionary sanctions scope inquiry

This isn't an arbitration enforcement request, but it is a request for clarification about an aspect of the discretionary sanctions active for pseudoscience and fringe science topics. The discretionary sanctions topic list and the discretionary sanctions alert template both refer to "pages" when discussing the scope of the pseudoscience restrictions. However, the (repeatedly-amended) Arbitration Committee remedy only specifies "articles", albeit "broadly construed". Is it safe to assume that this is a distinction without a difference, and arbitration enforcement would consider edits in this topic area even when made outside of article space?

Thank you in advance for your assistance. Hopefully, no AE action will ever be necessary and the point will be moot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question, and one I can't authoritatively answer. As an admin, I'd go for the more restrictive interpretation when in doubt. I recommend asking this question at WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  04:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Doing so now. Hopefully correctly ... and here I used to think the AFD and FAC processes had daunting template use! I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to name you in this clarification or not, but to be on the safe side, I have. I assume you'd want to provide input regardless, since as best as I can tell, you keep pretty busy with AE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The decision

I would like to appeal my ban. I have never damaged the macedonia pages with edits, but appear to annoyed some editors on the other side of the argument. In fact I have never edited the Macedonia pages to my knowledge, only ever given opinions on one or two talk pages - hense a topic ban of anything 'Macedonian' seems draconian and perhaps symbolic of a lack of understanding of my perceived 'crime' according to Fut Perf. I do not tend to edit the article pages because it causes conflict, however I do give my opinion on topics and previously sanctioned users like Fut Perf. I would also like to know how long the ban is for and why discussing formerly sanctioned users on a wiki project is seen as so dangerous or in need of a banning on a article page/s I never edited in the first place. Banning me from anything related to Macedonia for warning Greek wiki project page users over previous sanctioned members is akin to banning someone from driving for for disagreeing with speed humps and those who have been previously imprisoned for championing them. Thanks. Reaper7 (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your appeal is declined because it does not address the edits because of which you were banned (if anything, it inappropriately trivializes them), and it does not convince me that the conduct for which you were banned will not reoccur. If, as you say, you do not wish to edit articles, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for you in any case, because writing articles is sort of what we are here for.  Sandstein  18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to edit articles? Why an earth would you suggest that in response to me saying I barely touch the Macedonia pages? I was specifically and hugely ironically talking about the Macedonia pages I have not edited that you thought would be wise to ban me from. I could not have been clearer so why invent things in a passive aggressive manner? I came to your page with good faith. I have created and edited 100's of articles in my time, all free and clear to research if you would like. It will be far easier to research than the 3 times I have been in conflict with editors from other side of the Macedonia conflict in a total of 7 years. Perhaps you should have spent a little time investigating the editers I warned other editors to be aware of and the articles I have actually edited and created, rather than start off from a point of invention over who I am and why I edit? The fact that you suggested that I am not here to edit or write articles, I think that it will be hard to debate facts with you... I better go... Your comment against myself has little to do with reality and seems a little desperate and bad faithy. Hopefully this experience will make you curious for next time on the idea to investigate those who report as hard as those who are reported.. however I wont hold breath. It has been a miserable experience. Reaper7 (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification request:Sexology (Tparis)

The request for clarification in whcih you were named has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin guidance on complex issue

I want to thank you for efforts to direct me in the right path. I have, for example, opened a dispute at WP:RSN and there appears to be clear consensus against using a comic-book in neutral voice of history. I am very new to English Wikipedia and have had another issue, which is more troubling, and I would appreciate your insightful comments on best ways of handling this complex issue. I am noting a couple admins so they see my attempts to improve future collaboration. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, from that link I can't see what exactly your edits for which Bishonen warned you were, but I agree with them that calling others antisemites is normally a personal attack, which are not acceptable here. So, my advice is, don't do it.  Sandstein  18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Certainly. The complexity involved here is that people, yourself included with the above comment, jump to the wrong conclusions based on nearsightedness and bad faith (no offense intended). I had linked to the discussion part, my diff above includes a link where I add the full explanation to my userpage. Thank you for your consideration. I am very much open to suggestions on improving this, in hopes that no one will assume I think one side or the other is evil. It is merely a longstanding dispute over self determination in the same territory. That people on both sides do terrible things cannot be disputed. That I have bad intentions and have called someone an antisemite, is wholly incorrect. Thanks in advance. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

First update here. Probably far from perfect, but I think it makes progress. Let me know where else you think I can improve it to reduce (and/or quickly diffuse) bad-faith allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you think I can or should do here as an admin. I'm not familiar with or interested in this topic, sorry.  Sandstein  13:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No admin action was requested (or required). I wanted to know if the text clarifies to anyone in the future who might make bad faith assumptions and allege I want to smear the Palestinians as antisemitic/evil, that they basically jump to conclusion, possibly, due to not knowing the material well enough. An editor (myself included) should be allowed to mention some of the less appealing points in the Palestinian Muqawama (or the Israeli occupation) without being tarred and feathered. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Logging a sanction

Hi Sandstein. Did you mean to record this block in the March 2014 section of the log? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that somehow ended up in the wrong position.  Sandstein  16:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your sanction decision?

For the last month, Jaqeli has been making hundreds of edits on numerous Georgia-related articles [1], even though he had a topic ban on Georgia and Armenia related articles imposed on 15th August [2]. Given that you re-imposed these sanctions (after you let him off his original sanctions), what are you going to do about this? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The ban only applies to topics related to both countries. If you think it has been violated, you can make an enforcement request at WP:AE with all required information, such as dated diffs.  Sandstein  13:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Take it to AE. Yes - sure - and give you another excuse to sanction me for no reason! Does the 1RR block you gave me for highlighting Jaqeli's violations consist of only topics related to both countries? Or am I under even heavier editing restrictions (if I were to edit a Georgia-related article that is not related to Armenia) than serial-offender Jaqeli? I ask just out of curiosity - I was not making more than 1 revert a day even before you gave out your pointless and vindictive sanction. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but the reason for any sanction is recorded on the user's talk page. If you have concerns about my sanctions, it might be better to ask another administrator to assist you.  Sandstein  20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You gave me the sanction, but cannot explain what its limits are? However, you are certain about the limits of the sanction you gave to Jaqueli at the same time. My question seemed clear. I assumed that Jaqueli was under editing restrictions for Georgia-related articles that have nothing directly to do with Armenia. You told me that he is not. I am asking you if I am under editing restrictions for Georgia-related articles that have nothing to do with Armenia? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember which, if any, sanctions apply to you. If you leave a link to the message imposing these sanctions, I might be able to clarify this.  Sandstein  19:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield must be referring to this log entry. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That restriction applies to pages that relate to the history of either Armenia or Georgia, that is, not only pages that relate to both countries.  Sandstein  17:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on deletion of the entry "GIADA"

Good morning, I'm writing you regarding the deletion of the entry GIADA, to ask, if possible, your support. The entry was cancelled from the administrator Spartaz but, in my opinion, it has not been reached a majority consensus on deletion (please see the discussion at [[3]] ). Unfortunately I cannot contact Spartaz directly as previously suggested, since he has not a talk page. Anyway, in his page he says "I'm mostly inactive now. I have no problems with you asking another admin on my behalf". So I'm asking your opinion and support and, if possible, I would ask to reopen the discussion again to reach a clearer consensus on the issue. Obviously we are open to any suggestion and willing to make the entry even more concise if necessary. Thanks a lot. Silvia.gasparri (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Spartaz does have a talk page, at User talk:Spartaz, and they are currently active. You'll need to discuss this with them, as I don't have any authority to override the outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein  10:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "talk" link is not working with Spartaz, please see User talk:Spartaz. I have no way to communicate with him. Could you please support? Silvia.gasparri (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to work fine. Please click here to leave them a message.  Sandstein  12:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please userify Michael and Marisa to User:Lithistman/Michael and Marisa

I endorsed the deletion, but given the additional sources brought to light, I'd like to see what can be reliably sourced, and then move it back into the mainspace. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  10:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look it over, remove anything that might be problematic, and move it back to the mainspace at some point soon. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Made a mistake there

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I couldn't address Cambalachero and Marshal at the Arbitration enforcement page. I thought that since Marshal had reported me, I could mention him directly. I removed my comment. What should I do regarding my complaints, then? What is the correct form? --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Because you are interaction-banned, the best way to deal with your concerns is to completely ignore what the others do. Failing that, as you have been advised multiple times, if you truly think that action is needed, use WP:ARCA to ask the Arbitration Committee to take it.  Sandstein  17:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --Lecen (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Princess Marie Luise Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel

HI! What shall we do about that? Should I really nominate it for deletion again? It kind of defeats the purpose of nominating articles for deletion. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declined the speedy deletion, so it's him you should ask, sorry.  Sandstein  19:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

spouse of prime minister

Sorry to bother you, but I mentioned your close of the spouse of the prime minister of India at the admin noticeboard. I said your name there and per protocol wanted to inform you, but I need nothing more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I found following notion quite interesting "The article's lead contains a relatively thorough set of inclusion criteria, and most "delete" opinions do not make clear (or at least not clear enough to mandate deletion) why those criteria in and of themselves might violate any applicable policies." The ongoing discussion addresses the lack of rationale for the current criteria, the article has been tagged as outdated, as the criteria are based on a 2001 report. That said, I think a further afd might be possible. I invite your feedback as I assume you been through the process more often than me and have a better overview of the previous discussion. Gruezi aus dem großen kanton Serten (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not involved with this topic area other than by closing that AfD, and am not following any ongoing discussions. I can't therefore offer any useful advice. Regards,  Sandstein  12:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that threaded discussion issue

I wasn't sure how to respond when Viriditas initially replied threaded to me, as I don't have experience on that page. I know it's not allowed in case requests, from my brief participation in the Landmark thing, but wasn't sure about in enforcement requests. My apologies. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad

Hi Sandstein. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, just wanted to say, that the editing I made on Game of Thrones was accurate and more specific, than the previous change, due to the fact I mentioned what countries it's filmed in mainly, then the countries were a few scenes were shot in and the film studios it's made in and the city that film studios are in, so I will like to ask what I changed that was inaccurate or false — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamCrowleySuper (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

RFAR Gamalael

Sorry to have put you through the trouble of removing my misplaced request. As far as I can see I simply put it at the bottom of the page rather than at the end of the right section. Before I do it again, I'd just like to check -- is that obviously wrong? Andyvphil (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make a request for arbitration, you must make it on the page WP:RFAR, not on WP:AE, which is what you did.  Sandstein  10:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere in the process they both appear to be on the same page. I think I just fixed it. Again, sorry. Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement both use the same talk page. They should have separate talk pages, but they don't. This is a long standing problem. Can someone please fix this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

POV pusher

Would like to know what can be done since user:Afghanwrites, has started changing numerous Ghurid related articles from Iranian to Pashtoon/Suri.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]
He attempted the same type of edits back on Sept30-Oct 1 2014.[10] Accordingly, Afghanwrites holds a battleground mentality against Persian/Iranians.[11]
Any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The page WP:DR describes how to proceed in case of disagreements with others.  Sandstein  06:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure my posting facts on the talk page will keep Afghanwrites from removing referenced information[12] and he will "suddenly see the light". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any rivalry with any one unless anyone try to do so

Iam not against anyone but the factual references are presented besides by claims., The Ghurids are Afghan origin Islamic emperor who had Arabs and Turks beside them but persians were against the emperor ., the original persians are shiya muslims of safavids origins. they have never been in picture while the Afghans were spreading the message of peace towards the Indian subcontinent. actually the whole objective of the Suri tribes (Ghurids) were to free the region especialy the Indian subcontentent from the prejudise , discrimination of small communities who were seen as slaves according to Indian Brahmans. so please do not refer evernything to Persian Iranian or tajiks , all the wikipedia informations regarding that region and even afghanistan is refered to the iranians or persians intentionaly , its not convenient for the policy of wikipedia as well. be provide neutral and accurate informations all people will support it, kind regards Afghanwrites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanwrites (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Indo-Persian Historiography Up to the Thirteenth Century, by Iqtidar Husain Siddiqi, page 154;"C.E. Bosworth rejects the story about the descent and the time of conversion of the Shansabanis to Islam as "myths of a type familiar within the Islamic world." He describes the Ghurids of eastern Iranian Tajik stock."
• Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, by David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence, page 251;"The dynamics of North Indian politics changed dramatically, however, when the Ghurids, a dynasty of Tajik (eastern Iranian) origins, arrived from central Afghanistan..."
• Strange Parallels:Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830, Victor Lieberman, page 710;"...attacks on northwest India by Turkic Ghaznavids and Tajik Ghurids in the 11th and 12th centuries paved the way for the famed Delhi Sultanate."
• Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road, Johan Elverskog, page 130;"The Ghurids were eastern Persians, or Tajiks, from the mountainous heartland of what is now northwest Afghanistan..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Encyclopaedia of Islam, Ghurids, C.E.Bosworth, "GHURIDS. the name of an eastern Iranian dynasty which flourished as an independent power in the 6th/12th century and the early years of the 7th/13th century and which was based on the region of Ghur [q.v.] in what is now central Afghanistan with its capital at Firuzkuh." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

How does this concern me? I am not interested in this topic. If you two are, please use the relevant article talk pages or each other's user talk pages.  Sandstein  16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khanjar: The Knife

The AFD resulted in a delete. And although I felt that the topic might have been salvable, it seems someone recreated that article without going through DRV. Just thought you should know. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedied, thanks.  Sandstein  21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"

Since you were the closer of the AFD referenced in the following boilerplate RFC, you might feel that action on this is inappro, but if not then..... please opine in the poll!
In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Brianna_Wu#Image

Let's discuss there; hopefully I can convince you that an image, when good, can be very very good, and while bad, is still better than nothing. As they say. Ahem. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request(Pseudoscience)

An arbitration clarification request(Pseudoscience), either involving you, or in which you participated has been archived. The request resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here For the arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, do you think that Ayurveda falls under the Arbcom sanctions of Pseudoscience? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the topic. That would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources.  Sandstein  11:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)