User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/February

AE Notice
Hi Sandstein. Thank you for reviewing and imposing sanctions. Since I disagreed with the decision, I filed an appeal on AE. Can you please review? Thanks in advance. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandstein. Technical question for you. Out of curiosity, if you set the ban at 15:33 PM for 24 hours, why did it not let me edit at 15:34 in 24 hours and 1 minute but extended to 16:01 PM? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know. Possibly an autoblock if you tried to edit after you were blocked. Or maybe an editor at WP:VPT can help you with this.  Sandstein   22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hipstamatic
Re: "Article is adequately sourced to third party sources". Not all the blog refs are editorially controlled newspaper ones and there's a foreign language ref (without translation WP:NONENG). I consider this a weak set of refs, hence the tagging, especially as it is not a stub. What do you think? Widefox (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that tags this broad are helpful for improving an article that already has multiple independent reliable sources. Is there any assertion in particular that needs better sourcing? If yes, I recommend that you tag it with cn and it can be fixed.   Sandstein   22:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think its borderline in terms of "reliable" refs, but often that way with software, hey. It does sound a bit promotional, especially about "enjoyed substantially more success than its purported plastic predecessor" (and of course there was no original). I will leave as is, as you seem to have it in hand, thanks for discussing. Widefox (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article
Hey Sandstein. The above article was deleted because it was suspected to be a hoax or a nonexistent state, and it was completely unverified. It looks like a source to verify its existence has been found: a Garowe Online news article covers the announcement of the founding of the Islamic Emirate (see above). Should be enough to overturn the deletion decision, unless I'm missing something. Anyway, could you take a quick look and undelete the article? Thanks.  Swarm   X 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Islamic Emirate of Somalia
 * Articles for deletion/Islamic Emirate of Somalia
 * Source: http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Analysis.shtml


 * Sorry but that's merely a passing mention, by far not enough to support a whole article. And it reads: "... by al-Shabab, which announced in mid-September the formation of the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia" ...". Anybody can announce that they have formed a country. What we would need is a reliable source describing that there is such a country, where it is, who governs it, etc.  Sandstein   22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we already know about it; the territory is just the part of Somalia that Al-Shabaab controls (see this or this, virtually all of southern Somalia). That information is already verified. If Al-Shabaab announce that their territory is now called the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia," isn't that enough since the area is already de facto independent? If recreated, unsourced information must be removed and the rest rewritten (which I will do), but I don't believe the subject in its entirety is unverifiable.  Swarm   X 14:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit synthetic to me. The deleted article's lead read: "The Islamic Emirate of Somalia is an administration in Somalia established (initially) by Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen and Hizbul Islaam, who do not recognize the authority of the Transitional Federal Government of the Republic of Somalia nor the presidency of Sharif Sheikh Ahmad. The Republic of Somalia and the Islamic Emirate of Somalia both have regional governors that have been chosen for every region in Somalia, however in practice the Islamic Emirate governs only the southern regions (Middle Shabelle, Lower Shabelle, Middle Juba, Lower Juba, Bay and most of Gedo and Bakool as well as large parts of Banaadir (the capital region), Galgaduud and Hiiraan)." None of this is verified by your reference, especially that there is an actual state-like government by that name. But if you disagree, you can write a userspace draft and submit it to WP:DRV.  Sandstein   16:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it would be rewritten. I thought the deleted version may have had good information, but from what you're saying, it must be way off the mark, to the point that the text doesn't even represent the reality of the situation. I guess I'll just start from scratch and recreate the page when it's done.  Swarm   X 18:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

AE
AE case: 
 * You know what's cool about the English language? It has these things called words, which can be used to form sentences, and thereby impart meaning in a process called communication.  Sandstein   22:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or for some folks, the secret is to bang the rocks together :-) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of page
Hey Sandstein,

I have created an page at the below link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voobly

However it was deleted saying "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I would like to explain more about this. Voobly is basically a Service rather than a website. It is exactly similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameRanger in every aspect(in fact a competitor). Since i am new to Wikipedia, I do accept that the page was not explained properly as i thought of updating the page later(in 2-3 days). I request you to kindly consider Voobly like others(Game Ranger) and provide us permission to continue updating the page. Above all, I did not create page in Wikipedia for promotion or something else. It falls into the category "Online gaming services". Its not a commercial service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakmdeo (talk • contribs) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Articles must meet the standard WP:N and must be written from a neutral point of view. If you believe you can write an article about that meets these requirements, please draft it at User:Deepakmdeo/Voobly and we'll see. Whether competitors have an article is irrelevant. Please see also WP:FAQ/Organizations.   Sandstein   20:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hi. Just leaving the notice about the recent AE result. Twilight chill t   00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
Hey, I saw your edits at DYK and clicked over to your user page and was impressed. Have you considering applying to become a Online Ambassadors? It is a great way to help college students become more familiar with Wikipedia, and make them good long term contributers! Sadads (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't think that I have the time that would be needed to do this correctly.  Sandstein   21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gustav Jahn - why deleted?
Hello, Sandstein - I was referred to you via Deletions @ Wikipedia - I'd just like to know why Gustav Jahn's (bergsteiger) page was deleted (but not in Commons). CJH/England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.58.197 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the exact name of the page you refer to?  Sandstein   16:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to your query generated by my post - I tried to access Wikipedia reference to Gustav Jahn, Alpine painter and Mountaineer (died 1919) - it seems you advised/were instrumental in having the reference taken off the English site (it is still on the Wikipedia German site). I just want to know why all reference to this artist has been removed for English speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.58.197 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Gustav Jahn was deleted for the reasons given in the community discussion at Articles for deletion/Gustav Jahn.  Sandstein   19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gustave Jahn's English Language page - what right have you to delete this page???? You have given no valid reason WHATSOEVER for deletion - so you couldn't find a reference - is that it? Why is the German language page not deleted? Why is the Wiki Commons Jahn page not deleted? JUST WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.58.137 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have after you have calmed down a bit.  Sandstein   23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi Sandstein. Quick question. I am currently working on creating/updating articles on US embassies and ambassadors. The article on United States Ambassador to Azerbaijan needs a minor update such as changing vacant to the name of current ambassador. Is it acceptable if I ask another editor Ser Amantio di Nicolao to make that minor edit updating the article, or is it against the ban to even request that on someone's talk page? Or maybe, you could do it for me? :) Please let me know. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have, exceptionally, made the update. However, making such edits yourself or asking others to make them for you would violate your topic ban.  Sandstein   15:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I made an exception in asking you too since the article is from the category of articles on Ambassadors of the United States but happens to be related to Azerbaijan, a topic I am banned on. I also felt it was admissible to ask you, the admin who made the ban, since the other party banned at the same time is editing talk pages related to the topic ban. Thanks for helping out.  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mister-Miss International Action Online eps.1
Hi Sandstein

I noticed this page was created Mister-Miss International Action Online eps.1 by user:Themmiaoeps1. I also noticed similar pages were created and deleted (Mister-Miss International Action Online 2011) from a user which you have declined their unblock request. blocked User:Emmaimmots. Syrthiss blocked him/her rather.--Visik (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there anything you would like me to do?  Sandstein   15:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was taken care of by other admins. No action required Sandstein. Thank you for your reply. --Visik (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Arthas Menethil (2nd nomination)
Hello, Sandstein.

I am slowly combing through Warcraft/World of Warcraft articles past and present in an effort to create well-written and well-sourced articles related to the game series. It seems that a lot of them once existed and were deleted in 2007 due to poor sourcing and POV-style writing. I noticed that you deleted the Arthas Menethil page subsequent to the December 2007 deletion discussion referenced in the headline. The article's subject was merged (such as it is) into the Races and factions of Warcraft article's "Humans" section (to which Arthas redirects), where he bears a two-sentence mention.

Media coverage has been generated in the intervening 3 years regarding the game series in general and the article subject specifically (named #41 of IGN's Top 100 Videogame Villains and #19 of Gamepro's 47 Most Diabolical Video-Game Villains of All Time, as two examples). Additionally, interviews with the game creators regarding game and character development are now available via independent sources as well as Blizzard's World of Warcraft magazine. As such, would it be possible to userify the contents of this article to User:Cjmclark/Sandbox/Warcraft/Arthas Menethil so that I may work on rewriting and sourcing it? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.  Cjmclark (Contact) 18:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, done.  Sandstein   20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Wow...that article really was pretty terrible.  Oh, well.  Time to get to work.   Cjmclark (Contact) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

AE User:Koakhtzvigad
Could you please go back and state explicitly in your decision for topic-ban what I am being banned for so I can state it in my appeal. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For your edits to B'Tselem, as already explained in the AE thread.  Sandstein   06:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In reply to your bolding of "explicitly" above, I do not believe that it is necessary for me to expand on my statement at AE at this time.  Sandstein   11:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you will not reconsider your decision in regard to the imposed sanction? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should I?  Sandstein   13:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD voter fraud
I know this is old and we probably can't do anything now, but I thought you should know anyway, especially since this editor is still engaged in whitewashing the Russell Blaylock article by making Blaylock's radically fringe and dangerous views appear neutral or mainstream:


 * User:Greensburger voted keep three times in the following AfD:


 * Articles_for_deletion/Russell_Blaylock

I have notified about the problems involving several editors here:


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine

They insist on slanting the article away from its actual fringe status. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That AFD is very old. This now sounds like a case for content dispute resolution. Have you tried any?  Sandstein   11:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI issue that may involve Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
I'd appreciate it if you'd look at WP:ANI as I think there are issues here relating to Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and I note you've been involved in AE requests there. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Petra (sculpture)
r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 00:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Meowy
Hi. I think this might be of interest for you as an admin who deals with AA issues: Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy. Regards, Grand  master  08:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am following the reappearance of User:Grandmaster and it is clear that he is harassing other users who he tries to eliminate from WP through the fabrication of bogus accusations of sockpuppetry. What remedies exist to stop User:Grandmaster and others like him from attacking others in his efforts to push POV? Xebulon (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only harrassment I see on this page is by you, Xebulon. I am blocking you in enforcement of your topic ban, as explained on your talk page.  Sandstein   21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In reply to Grandmaster, it looks as though the SPI report has now been processed.  Sandstein   21:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the result is positive. However that is not the only suspicious account there. Grand  master  10:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Damian back






Edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahem, there is no edit warring. I have made some much needed corrections to an important article.  Best Peter Damian VII (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

question
Hi Sandstein. Here's a public domain image File:PinocchioChiostri22.jpg. As you could see it is signed by the artist. If I am to change this image, do I have to leave the artist's signature in, or I could remove it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a copyright matter, you can do what you want to the image, because it is in the public domain. For the purposes of Wikipedia, removing the signature may be a good idea or not depending on the purpose the image is intended to be used for (WP:WATERMARK). But because other Wikipedias use the image, I recommend that you create a new copy of the image if you want to remove the signature. Regards,  Sandstein   22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about BLP
Hi Sanstein, because you once blocked me for alleged BLP violation, I believe you are the right administrator to ask this question. Could you please take a look at this edit summary that is addressed directly to opinion of Bret Stephens published in The Wall Street Journal. Would this be a BLP violation? Also the user appears to be edit warring on the article that as all I/P related articles should not be reverted more than once in 24 hour period. Regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in here: I don't think there's any need for administrative action. I reverted Gatoclass' edit to the page and he reverted me back, but then a couple other users got involved so I don't think this really amounts to edit warring on Gatoclass' part. Whether Stephens' comments are racist is a matter of opinion, but I don't think it is a BLP violation to describe a view someone has as being racist. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * About BLP I am not sure of course. That's why I asked, but edit warring is a clear violation. Neither you, nor other users, who edited the article made two reverts. Gatoclass is an administrator, and IMO he should know better than write pointed edit summaries and to get involved in edit warring. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked for 1RR as explained on the article talk page. This should render the BLP issue, which could be very complicated to resolve, essentially moot.  Sandstein   18:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi Sandstein, this editor, Karfiol, is just going on an anti-Armenian and anti-Kurd rampage by removing every single mention of the Armenian Genocide or Armenian spelling on cities in Turkey. I think it's safe to say that he is not doing any of this out of good faith and so I think we need some intervention ASAP before he wreaks any more havoc. I asked Buckshot08 to look at it as well, since he banned an IP who was possibly Karfiol's sock. Thanks. Best,--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef, large-scale disruption.  Sandstein   18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate it; but would it be too much of a stretch to say that he just returned with a new account? This comment against me almost seems to confirm it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The sock has now been blocked by another admin.  Sandstein   06:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical question
Hi Sandstein, I am working on an article, and I need to add a source. The source is here (the second in the list "Tense and Aspect in Sentence and Discourse", but when I open it, I see no URL. Could you please explain to me how to add this source to the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The document has the URL http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.118.1692&rep=rep1&type=pdf. You can obtain this URL from the search result by right-clicking on the link in the list of search results and selecting "Copy URL", or an equivalent command, from your browser's context menu.  Sandstein   23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You know everything! --Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA notifications
Hi, I'm not sure what the procedure is for requesting this, and this is not a request for arbitration enforcement - at least as far as I see it :)

Please would you provide User_talk:Israelish with a formal notification of WP:ARBPIA based on recent criticism of their editing in the topic area and their contributions in general which seem to involve the topic area quite often. I couldn't find their username in Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

I would leave a notification myself, but it's my understanding it has to come from an administrator.

Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, per ARBPIA the warning need not be issued by an admin, so you can go ahead and use the uw-sanctions template. It seems appropriate under the circumstances.  Sandstein   23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you
Thank you!  Sandstein  07:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
You topic-banned me almost two weeks ago (for two weeks), and I won't get to appeal it this week, so two questions:

1. Can I appeal the topic ban after it expires?

2. Can I appeal an earlier 3RR block at the same time as appealing the topic ban?

3. If successful, will they be both removed from my record?

Cheers Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Nothing prevents you from doing so, but the appeal is likely to be declined as moot.
 * 2. Likewise.
 * 3. No. Block logs cannot be edited, and the ban will continue to be logged together with the outcome of any appeal.  Sandstein   11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There would be something wrong with that wouldn't you say? Just because the ban happens to have expired does not mean its consequences are moot towards my reputation, since you confirm that its results are also recorded in the block logs. Surely then it should be declined based on evidence rather than on relevance to enforcement?
 * I'm fairly sure based on evidence my appeal would be upheld.
 * By the way, I hold no personal feelings towards your decision. Based on your activity logs you could not have given my case the time it deserved, and lacking procedural regulations, the outcome was in hind sight predictable.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the ban (and any appeal thereof) is not recorded in the block log, only on the arbitration case page. Apart from that, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I see no point in discussing this further.  Sandstein   21:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Close an RfC?
Hey Sandstein,

I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to review an RfC we've had on Elizabeth II. I'm mulling over bringing this topic to informal mediation, and wanted to get a third opinion before doing so. If you have a moment to look over, comment, and close the RfC, I'd be most grateful.

I'm running this request by you Ludwigs2, and SlimVirgin.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Slim took care of it. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi from Peter
Hi Sandstein. I made this edit] to WP:FLAT, an article I substantially created a few years ago. Also various edits to the talk page of Fads and fallacies in the name of science. As I am editing from an IP, is that OK? I don't approve of socking, i.e. editing without making my identity clear. I hope that's OK, please don't revert important contributions to the project, as you have before. Regards User:Peter Damian.
 * You are banned and may not edit Wikipedia for any reason. Accordingly, all your edits are reverted.  Sandstein   11:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I undid your edit on WP:FLAT with the argument that Peter's revision clearly improves the article and so I appealed to WP:IAR (though I forgot to insert the proper link - I am still learning). Concerning his edits to Fads and fallacies in the name of science, I haven't made up my mind whether they actually help the discussion. Concerning your argument for reverting, I suggest that there is here a parallel with WP:OWN in the sense that nobody 'owns' Wikipedia.
 * Just to be clear, I read WP:BAN and I am not proxy-editing. Hpvpp (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted it to way Sandstein had it. I fail to see how it was an improvement, not even close. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tuscumbia
Hi Sandstein. Is Tuscumbia supposed to edit South Caucasus-related subjects? The primary restriction of AA2 included the region, which was the main reason Meowy was first primarily sanctioned for (the case was primarily launched after a conflict between an Iranian user and Atabek). Note also that Tuscumbia is editing very controversial subjects. For example, Temur Iakobashvili is a controversial figure implicated in the Ossetian and Abkhazian issues. He is also the co-founder of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, the largest think thank organization of the South Caucasus. The organization is very implicated in Armenia and Azerbaijan issues. - Fedayee (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Links, please.  Sandstein 
 * See this. Also another example is this, she currently runs this ministry which Tuscumbia has created. Note that those three articles are directly related to the conflict in the South Caucasus, as the figures implicated with the Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts are also directly implicated with the South Caucasus issue, particularly Karabakh. If he can edit those, he can edit Turkey-related articles which involve Armenians or Iran-related articles. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Tuscumbia should not make these edits? Are they subject to a topic ban, and if so, could you please link to it?  Sandstein   07:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new
Just to say that I and Mike Rosoft have reverted vandalism on your talk page. It has stopped now, and the vandal has been blocked. Anyway, happy editing! Minima c  ( talk ) 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Sandstein   22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I should probably know this
Since when has blocking a sock involved removing all the comments they've ever made? I'm speaking of Peter Damian, so you know. I don't remember seeing this rule on WP:SOCK and I thought I should know it for the future, so I can follow through with it. Clearly, there's a lot of comments that have yet to be removed from Wikipedia that need to be, per policy. Silver seren C 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking a sock does not involve removing all the comments they've ever made. But blocking a sock of a banned user may involve reverting all edits made in violation of the ban. See WP:BAN.   Sandstein   22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism to this page
FYI - I caught it while doing RecentChange patrolling, and fixed it up best as I could so's you wouldn't have a mess to come back to. Hope you don't mind my boldness. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, thanks!  Sandstein   07:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tiananmen page
Hi Sandstein. I appreciate your digging into the conflict on the Tiananmen page. I have one question and one remark. The question is: is this going to be part of the decision? That is, should I arrange more evidence? In fact, I think the evidence is all there, but I believe there is a problem in the way you have interpreted it. I believe it is mistaken to suggest that the remark I made was misleading, and that my edits were against consensus. A new consensus was forming on the talk page. It was indeed being discussed and hammered out. I was engaged in that discussion, as were a number of others. If I had been saying something misleading, someone would have said so. Instead, the interpretation I had of mine and PCPP's actions was the same as that shared by three other editors in that dispute. SilkTork came along later and suggested that he was pleased with the discussion and editing. Did you read that? Doesn't that--a remark by a respectable editor late in the game--indicate that there was not a major problem with my conduct? Shouldn't it be the case that my conduct in that dispute should be mostly evaluated by the other people involved in it? I mean: what did other people make of the dispute, the ones that were involved in the discussion? You can find that out by reading the talk page. I am wondering whether you are making your own interpretation of that dispute in a way that is quite different from what others appeared to be thinking at the time (as evident from the reversions other editors made to PCPP, the comments they made, SilkTork's remarks, etc.) I reverted PCPP several times, yes: but two or three other editors reverted him multiple times, each of whom, I think, he edit warred with. I know it is not easy to dig through these things. It is time consuming and tricky, and difficult. But I urge you to consult the talk page, which contains an extensive discussion involving multiple parties. Also, if you look at the history carefully, you will see who was reverting who, as I point out above. My edits were entirely in line with the consensus that was being formed.

The issue you point out, about the prominence of it being regarded as a hoax by the government, is one of the areas of dispute, but there were a number of others. In that context, if you look at the evidence carefully, you will see that it is PCPP who was being disruptive and editing against consensus, not participating in proper discussion. I need to know whether I am expected to prepare a timeline of that editing, because I believe you have misunderstood. Or maybe one of the other people involved will clarify the situation. I'm not sure. So my question is: will your interpretation of that dispute be considered in handing out sanctions in this case? Secondly, should I prepare a timeline of the events which properly show (in my opinion, and I am confident in the opinions of the various others involved) what really happened in the discussion and reverting on that page?

By the way, you should know that from now on I will never revert PCPP more than once per day, and never on two consecutive days. Secondly, I will never again call him a troll etc. I suggest you look closely at the number of people PCPP has edit warred with on these pages and his paltry contributions to the discussions. The most problematic thing is that he has created battleground environments that drive good contributors away. I have not done that. I've worked with people, compromised, changed my mind, etc. etc. I believe all this is evident in the talk page discussions--my regrettable remarks about PCPP notwithstanding. By the way: did you read the timeline I assembled of the events on the anthropogenic disasters page? It again differs from your analysis. I would like to be sure that you have read it, and that the deliberations are being made with a clear picture of what actually happened at the forefront. --Asdfg12345 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (This relates to WP:AE.) In reply to your question, you can write whatever you want, but as a practical matter the more you write, the less it is it likely to be read in depth.
 * In reply to your remark, at the time you first reverted PCPP's removal of your changes, the talk page discussion consisted of you and one other editor. A two day discussion between two editors is not enough by far to form consensus for wide-ranging changes to a featured article in a highly contentious topic area.
 * I have read your timeline, but since it omits your own reverts, I do not find it useful and have preferred to write my own analysis.  Sandstein   18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is simply untrue. I am reproducing it here with my reverts bolded. This was there for all to see. This is the timeline that happened. I am astonished that you say you did not notice that it included my own reverts. This tells me that you are already convinced that I'm someone who need not be listened to and can simply be banned.


 * 1) I add Falun Gong to list of genocides and alleged genocides
 * 2) PCPP removes the entire row of information with a terse explanation asking for reliable sources
 * 3) Homunculus puts it back with “Reuters as a reliable source, both for low estimate of death toll and for reference to genocide.”  (Reuters piece cites, but does not itself endorse, the low-end death toll estimate).
 * 4) PCPP reverts wholesale again, removing all information.  He leaves another terse edit summary saying “Reuters simply quoted FLG Info Center,” and thus is not a RS
 * 5) Homunculus leaves a note on PCPP’s talk page to discuss why he removed the information twice, and suggesting that if he takes issue with the quality of one reference, the solution is not to delete an entire row of content. Threatens to revert back again.
 * 6) Homunculus reneges on threat to revert, and instead notified PCPP that he will attempt to find solutions through a discussion on the talk page
 * 7) Homunculus starts talk page discussion, seeking feedback on the questions of whether Falun Gong should be included in list at all, and if so, how to solve the RS issue.
 * 8) PCPP says to Homunculus on his talk page: “Oh great, appearing merely 4 hours after my edits and begin reverting, you're obviously up to something...The material is added simply to prove a POINT.”  He then goes on to expand on his comments, saying to Homunculus: “I don't know whether you're here to edit an encyclopedia or help spread FLG propaganda.”
 * 9) Homunculus seeks input from {user|SilkTork}, who has been a mostly neutral and careful administrator, to weigh in and attempt to quickly arrive at a solution before matters escalate.
 * 10) SilkTork writes on the talk page: "Use one of these sources, and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them.”
 * 14:37 Seeing that there is a consensus that Falun Gong should be included in the list of alleged genocides (i.e., Homunculus, SilkTork--PCPP had said nothing on the talk page and had only attacked Homunculus so far.) Asdfg12345 reverts PCPP for the first time (the notorious ‘go away’ remark. DOH.)
 * 14:42 PCPP reverts, again removing entire row of content on Falun Gong against consensus.
 * 15:05 Asdfg reverts again, with some handwringing.


 * I stand corrected with respect to your not including your reverts. But nonetheless I do not see how this timeline brings anything new to my evaluation of the problem.  Sandstein   18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It clearly shows the context within which the reverting was done. You said "There has been belated talk page discussion." -- but this shows that talk page discussion and consensus seeking was involved from the beginning. It shows that my first revert was made after three editors had already agreed to including the material. That is crucial. It also shows that PCPP did not engage in proper discussion until after he had been reverted twice by two people. Aren't both these facts extremely telling? I would suggest that my behaviour here was not all that bad, because PCPP, as a longtime disruptive editor, was editing against consensus--I reverted him twice. I wish it was just once. But he had already warred with Homunculus, who is pretty new to the whole Falun Gong editing thing. This is a baptism of fire, I'd say. I need to know whether that explanation exculpates me from guilt in this case. If it does not then I will just give up the ghost. If it does, then I will present a better analysis of the Tiananmen incident, which I believe you have misread. So please tell me. And, you should know that I am genuinely sorry to use your time on this; on the other hand you stepped into it so you have a conscience responsibility to see it through, and see it done properly. I just now need to know whether you consider me guilty here, in light of this evidence. If so, then goodbye. If not, then I can further show, through diffs, that I am not as guilty as you think in the Tiananmen incident as well. And in both cases it is PCPP who is more guilty. Far more. --Asdfg12345 18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You make the mistaken assumption that misconduct by PCPP excuses or mitigates misconduct by you. That is not so. Everybody is judged, so to speak, only on their own merits. If two people each disrupt Wikipedia, both are sanctioned, rather than neither of them. Your explanation therefore does not make me reconsider my assessment. (I am not speaking in terms of guilt because criminal justice terminology is inappropriate for dispute resolution on a website.)  Sandstein   19:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But I was not being disruptive. That's my whole point. I was asserting the consensus that had been formed on the page. I do not know why you have chosen to ignore this fact. --Asdfg12345 19:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My scolding of PCPP was obviously a joke. Things that happened three months ago are not stale. I think you should look through the whole history of his editing I assembled in an RfC. This is a dispute with a very, very long background. I am saying that the recent edits can only be understood in the context of longterm disruptive editing behaviour from this person. You cannot just discount a whole range of evidence which has led to this point. It is of course inappropriate to leave stupid edit summaries scolding people. I can only throw my arms up in the air and say something like: please look further back and see how conciliatory I have been for so long, and that, only after all this time have I finally lost patience and simply want to stop the charade that he is here for any productive purpose. It is evident that other editors have already reached this point with him, after only a few months. Your analysis should be properly focused on this question: is PCPP a disruptive editor? Are his edits contributive or disruptive? Are his talk page remarks contributive or disruptive? Do other editors find him contributive or disruptive? I believe you should ask those questions. If you want to carry out a separate analysis of my behaviour and speech, please do so. That's another matter. --Asdfg12345 18:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am widely known for not having a sense of humor, and tend to take the things people write at face value. In the context of the longterm conflict between you two, in particular, I am not inclined to view your scolding of PCPP as a joke. Jokes are made between friends and colleagues, whereas your mutual conduct is uncollegial. With respect to PCPP's alleged longterm history of disruption, it is your responsibility to make that case via diffs. Allegations without evidence in the form of diffs are worse than worthless, they are disruptive in and of themselves. My AE review is normally limited to the diffs you submit as evidence, and to your own editing in the context of these diffs.  Sandstein   18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [ec] FYI, final note. I have no idea how this thing works, it seems admins do it in a black box, but I left this note to BorisG in an attempt to open up the discussion. I'm quite concerned with the hastiness and lack of thoroughness with which the evidence has been discussed. Perhaps it is the case that, at this point, no one has an interest in real justice and that, like a father dealing with fighting children, punishments are simply handed out indiscriminately, just because you raised a ruckus. The father does not go and patiently find out what happened: he lashes out. If that is what's happening, then that's a shame. If not, and there is an aspiration to arrive at a fair decision and one based on the all the evidence (I've been saying that word a lot) and testimony from others, then I suggest you stay the decision and wait until there has been wider input and a more thorough and impartial dissection of, for example, the dispute on the Tiananmen page. And to see whether others would just as quickly as you rule out the last several years of problematic editing. Anyway. I'm sure you're doing your best. I don't mean anything against you. UPDATE: OK, so what do you want diffs for, and how long do I have to prepare them? --Asdfg12345 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is run by volunteers who have limited time. Enforcement discussions are therefore normally brief and to the point. I have already given the case you brought some four hours of my time, which is more than enough. Merely because you disagree with my assessment does not mean that it is not thorough and impartial. In reply to your question, if you believe that PCPP has engaged in longterm disruption, you need to prove this via diffs, not merely allege it. The choice of diffs is up to you, but the evidence should be well-structured and well-described. You have time until your topic ban I am proposing at WP:AE takes effect, which could be anytime from hours to days depending on the feedback of other admins.  Sandstein   18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am genuinely sorry that I wasted four hours of your time. Evidence of longterm disruption is in the RfC below. My only violations are against PCPP. PCPP's violations are against many other editors and against core wikipedia principles. Regarding diffs, I will provide some for the Tiananmen dispute which I believe exculpates me. But I can't help thinking you have already made up your mind. --Asdfg12345 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have made up my mind to the extent that I have proposed certain sanctions for you and PCPP at WP:AE based on the evidence presented there. You can still convince me otherwise, but you would need to be very convincing indeed.  Sandstein   18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For diffs on his longterm conduct see here. Skip the discussion, just go straight to the diffs and spend 10 minutes looking through them. This has gone on for years. --Asdfg12345 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I note that this RFC did not result in substantial support for your position, but rather the contrary. It is therefore not a sufficient basis for sanctions against PCPP.  Sandstein   18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What? No. That is not the case at all... the people who responded in favor of him were all longterm anti-Falun Gong editors. That may sound laughable as a serious response, but did you read Jayenn's note? Did you notice that they were all mutually reinforcing each other? Please read Jayen's thing here:


 * We should approach this RFCU with an open mind. The diffs provided here need to be looked at and analysed; some of them do appear to raise valid concerns. This edit by PCPP removes adequately sourced content with an edit summary of "copyedit". I also at first glance see no obvious reason why none of the sourced material removed in this edit should have been suitable.


 * Many of those who have commented above are already involved in the POV disputes. This needs wider community input and thorough analysis. -- JN 466  13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I think I am just going to forget this. We've both got better things to do. I have one request: make it a six-month ban for me, please. After that I will just stick to my simple two rules and never get into trouble again. Yes, I have an opinion, and yes, I assert it, but the crucial point of compromise and how I interact with other editors has been entirely neglected in your analysis. You've only looked at how I interact with PCPP. But according to others, PCPP himself is a highly problematic character who brings nothing but endless disruption. That is an extremely important point to grasp. I'm guilty of nothing but thwarting someone who himself wrecks the Wikepedia experience for several non-SPA editors. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take this under consideration, together with the input from other admins I am awaiting.  Sandstein   19:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please also consult:
 * -- this is about the Tiananmen page, on which PCPP had been reverted by three different editors on separate occasions, of whom I was one. It would take far more time than I have to provide a long analysis of the diffs there. But it should be clear from these remarks who was in the right (i.e., on the side of discussion and consensus) and who was not, simply by looking at the assessment of other editors. No one complained about me. Why? Because I was discussing things like a normal person, presenting evidence, and arguing my views in a measured way. The only person I had a problem with was PCPP. And guess what? So did everyone else! Why? Because he is extremely disruptive. I know my personal remarks are wrong. I should never have said that. But please try to gain a fuller understanding with reference to these remarks.
 * -- some other comments on his talk page.
 * My final wish is this: that you would take testimony (I find it most appropriate to use terms from criminal law, actually) from other witnesses to check whether your interpretation of some diffs (it has been sufficiently shown that you have not looked at everything, and I do not blame you) is the best. In particular, it should be the case that what the other involved parties think of my conduct is extremely relevant, because they are the community that I am working with to improve the pages. So far I'm only guilty of disrupting PCPP, but he is guilty of disrupting everyone and the encyclopedia. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, I respectfully disagree with you. Sorry for the intrusion, I just thought you may miss my comment on AE. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Pic
Hi, regarding this pic placement and fair use rationale. Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner - I requested closure via WP:AN but there seems little interest. If you are interested, would you assess the discussion, if as I suspect there is not support for the pics usage in the infobox then I would like to correct the fair use rational, you might read the discussion differently and I would appreciate your comment, it seems to make discussion and RFCs a waste of time if discussion stopped over three weeks ago and no one can be bothered to close it. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that there is no consensus from this RFC. Some say remove the image altogether, some say put it in the infobox and some say put it in the arrest section, but none of these opinions represents a clear consensus. At any rate, the current FUR also supports the current placement, so I see no pressing need for a change.  Sandstein   22:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you assert that there is support for your fair use rationale? I personally don't and as such I want to correct it, also the fact that the picture is not in current usage in the info box disputes your rationale, as such to reflect current usage and no consensus for your rationale I want to correct it, do you object to my doing that? Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am just going to boldly revert your unsupported fair use claim, if you feel that there is support for your infobox rationale then feel free to revert. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Change of name?
I'm rather surprised that someone thinks I should change my username after already spending a year and a half here at Wikipedia (July 2009) without any problem. Nicknames are just nicknames, Sandstein, they don't have to mean what they state. If Wiki users don't change their names into "Administrator 1", "Administrator 2", "Administrator 3" etc. after they become Administrators, then I think the same shouldn't be applied on me.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed result concerning Tentontunic
How does this proposed remedy make sense? The Four Deuces and Tentontunic edit war over a POV tag, and you guys craft a remedy banning others not currently editing the article from contributing, because they were sanctioned some time in the past, regardless of whether they may have since reformed. Check the edit history, no one previously sanctioned under WP:Digwuren or WP:EEML has been editing the article for a significant period of time, yet you guys want to ban them for contributing in the future. I fail to see how that is rational or fair. --Martin (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

...AND they propose that both Four Deuces and Tentontunic, who were the ones edit warring over a POV tag, are let off without sanctions, and left free to edit the article in the future, unsanctioned! Hilarious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think I was edit warring, I reverted once. The tag has been there since 2009 I honestly did not think removing it would count as edit warring, since I have now looked more closely at the article history I have seen the same editors who wish to delete the Communist terrorism article have much the same stranglehold on this one. That The Four Deuces has a battleground mentality is obvious in his most recent edits, even going so far as to propose for deletion an article I created. I shall go on a voluntary 0RR on the mass killings article, it is unfair that others be punished for my transgression. I am cross posting this here from the enforcement page in case you do not see it. Tentontunic (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article-level sanctions are imposed because the administrators examining the request have found that the problems with conduct on this article are not limited to the editing of The Four Deuces and Tentontunic. The sanction is rational and fair, in my opinion, because it prevents most of the previous edit-warriors from continuing to disrupt the editing of the article, while imposing only a very mild restriction on previously uninvolved EE-sanctioned editors (a restriction from editing one of 3 million articles).  Sandstein   22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re this when I clicked "edit", wrote my comment and clicked "save" the section was NOT closed. Also I did not get a message that there was an edit conflict. However, it showed up as being in a closed section.

Anyway, let me repeat the question: "Sandstein: the history of this article shows that it has been the subject of so much contention and conflict by so many previously sanctioned editors that the best way to stop the conflict is to remove most previous players from the game - Ummm, seriously Sandstein, can you specifically point/list these supposed previously sanctioned editors, who were part of the three ArbCom cases you include in your sanction, who did something wrong on the article at any point in the past year or so (aside from TFD)? Or hell, can you even specifically point/list such editors who EDITED THE ARTICLE AT ALL??? If not, then why are you sanctioning them? And what do you think this will accomplish?"

Additionally, above you state: because it prevents most of the previous edit-warriors from continuing to disrupt the editing of the article. Who are these "edit-warriors"? Name them by name if you can! Aside from TFD, there's like not a single other editor (maybe, maybe Petri) who has edited that article in the past six months! Or even a year. So what is the point of this sanction? Whether the sanction is "mild" or not is beside the point. The point is that it is horribly ill thought out and unfair.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's look at it the other way around: In a year, is the article still the subject of edit wars and other conflicts? If the answer turns out to be yes, I agree that the sanction is inadequate and needs to be reviewed. Until then, let's wait and see. After all, this approach worked with London Victory Parade of 1946 and with Caucasian Albania.   Sandstein   22:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I slap an arbitrary sanction on you, because for example, there is some shenanigans going on Northern Italy related topics, and then say, oh well, we can just wait a year and then if it looks like it didn't work I might, just might admit that this sanction was misplaced? Until then...
 * And what ended the trouble at London Victory Parade was not your sanction but ONE particular editor's topic ban.
 * Above all, I note that you have completely ignored my question - perhaps because answering it may be a bit embarrassing. So let me repeat it: can you specifically point/list these supposed previously sanctioned editors, who were part of the three ArbCom cases you include in your sanction, who did something wrong on the article at any point in the past year or so (aside from TFD)? Or hell, can you even specifically point/list such editors who EDITED THE ARTICLE AT ALL???Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes., , , and that's only on the first few history pages and only usernames that I personally recognize as previously sanctioned. It is true that the group of previous edit warriors on this article and the group of previously sanctioned editors overlap only partially, but if (as you say) many of the latter have not so far edited the article, then banning them from it will not restrict them very much.  Sandstein   23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * None of these guys except for Petri were part of these cases. I'm assuming then that you're including anyone who's ever been "put on notice". Even so, Mark Nutley is currently banned anyway, I think Igny has only made one or two edits (and I wasn't aware he was "put on notice") and even Petri hasn't edited the article in awhile. Even allowing that, that still leaves a couple dozen editors who have nothing to do with the article. Is this like "it's better to punish a hundred innocent men than let one guilty one get away"? Oh wait, Tentontunic is not subject to any sanction so some of the guilty get away too. And as I already said the fact that these editors "have not so far edited the article, then banning them from it will not restrict them very much." is beside the point. There's a principle here, there's a notion of fairness and there is also implications for the general atmosphere in which Wikipedia takes place - the decision says it's okay to sanction editors for no reason at all. That's the kind of project we want here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is an issue with Mark Nutley, Igny and Petri Krohn, place the restriction on them. I haven't edited this article for a very long time and I certainly object to having this restriction placed on me, for no other reason than my past which was unrelated to this article in any case. I'm sure the others will too. Do you really want several dozen people complaining to ArbCom over this? The current problems are caused by a largely unrelated group of people. It seems there is a reluctance to sanction these editors and instead take the easy option of scapegoating this other group of people for no reason what so ever other than for something they may have done elsewhere in the past. This mis-aimed action will simply have no effect on this article since these people you have banned have just not been involved, while those who are actually involved have escaped any sanction at all. They must be laughing their arses off. --Martin (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no issue with Mark Nutley, Igny or Petri either. These are spurious examples with no meaning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Martin (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually no, I am not laughing at all. I feel terribly guilty that my actions lead to this. It is I believe unfair. Tentontunic (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a newbie and we don't bite newbies, and you reverted your last edit in any case, so it is fair that you were not sanctioned. But the other party to the case TFD was angling for sanctioning a wider group of univolved editors, so it was a win for him.

Considering The Four Deuces history of the same behavior on Venezuela articles, this is rather incredulous; I stopped watching/participating at Hugo Chavez long ago, since TFD and Jrtyloriv just operate together to remove well-justified POV tags no matter how many reliable sources are given and how many agree on article talk. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but SandyGeorgia, you have edited the Hugo Chavez article in the past. Hence, if any two random users get in an edit war over it at any point in the future, you will be banned from the Hugo Chavez article. Actually, it's not even that - since most editors being banned from the article under discussion have never edited it or have not edited it in the past year - it's worse. So let's see... if two random users get into an edit war on some Bolivia related article, THEN you will be banned from the Hugo Chavez article, because, you know, Bolivia's close enough to Venezuela for Arbitration/Enforcement "discretionary sanctions" purposes. They take their "discretionary" in the "discretionary sanctions" quite seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No difference. Might as well be banned from Chavez anyway, since it's OWNed and no one can or will do anything about it ... so someone go edit Autism so I can be officially banished to Honduras per discretionary sanctions.  It's quite amazing how TFD handles POV tags clearly justified on talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The decision hardly looks wise for at least two reasons. Firstly, most old editors who got sanctions for their behaviour in the past already elaborated more or less reasonable editorial pattern that allows them to avoid major edit wars and to maintain a fragile balance. You probably noticed that this case was a result of the intervention of the newbie. I anticipate that removal of old editors will lead just to an escalation of edit wars in close future, so the result will be the opposite. For example, I noticed that some very controversial edit has already been made in the lede, and, in my opinion, it is a direct consequence of the new restrictions (and just only a beginning). Secondly, the decision will not improve the article quality. By contrast, it creates a situation when controversial edits will stay longer in the article. The decision about 1 edit per week must be complemented by another decision, namely, that every controversial edit that has not been previously discussed on the talk page and has not been supported there can and should be reverted in any moment, and that that reverts should be excluded from the normal 1RR restriction. This scheme works fine for such a controversial and important article as the WWII article, and I have no idea why the same scheme cannot be applied to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article. And finally, this decision needs in some clarification. Is the list of the users who are banned from editing is limited with those who have been listed on the WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB pages, or it applies to all users who were sanctioned per these cases, but who are not listed there? And is it possible that these lists will be expanded post factum for the sanctions applied in the past?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am bemused by the fact I am barred from editing the London Parade which I have absolutely nothing to do with at all. The stretching of Digwaren has become absure, alas. Collect (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What seems to matter is not WHO is barred, but rather the NUMBER of people barred - that way you get the most bang for your banning bucks. The rationale seems to be "if these editors didn't edit the article then banning them is ok because they don't edit it anyway". Head, meet wall.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Beta Gaga
It would appear that your recent "slap on the wrists" for Alpha Beta Gaga did not garner the expected result.

User:Alpha Beta Gaga removed the references on the article Sari Gelin, but even before doing that he/she posts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey about how I am working for ASALA or PKK..

Another accusation made by User:Alpha Beta Gaga;"500.000 turkish civilians killed by armenian terrorists and the users like Kansas bear are making laugh after this tragedy.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A similar statement made by anon IP:94.54.228.174 on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey, would indicate User:Alpha Beta Gaga is most likely a sockpuppet of a blocked user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another sockpuppet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am asking Alpha Beta Gaga to respond to this.  Sandstein   22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

user Kansas Bear has some problems. He sent a private message to me. He said he will block my wikipedia account just because im Turkish and he said he doesnt want to see any Turkish people in wikipedia. he is against Turkish existence in wikipedia. i have no words. Just look his/her contributions. He always makes contributions agaist Republic of Turkey or Turkish people. how can i protest him in here wikipedia? any opinion?--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

his contributions must be categorized as "racism" or internet hate crime. i really want to know if wikipedia has any policy about this situation?--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

he blocked many people who defend Turkish folk, instruments and culture.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I could testify that Kanas Bear is one of the best users in Wikipedia who constantly undoes various ip vandalisms which usually trace to a couple of countries. The charges made by Alpha Beta Gaga is definitely bogus. The history of Kansas Bear shows exactly the type of Wikipedia users that are needed for Wikipedia. He constantly confronts vandalism emanating from ultra-nationalists type edits. The fact is certain countries and their education system emphasize racism, bogus history and ultra-nationalism (rather than normal patriotic feelings). Slowly this sort of mentality exposes itself as time passes. So wikipedia will always have a problem with such users. I would rather not get into details, but it is clear which countries those are by checking the ips. Kansas Bear should be praised for confronting the vandalism of such users. Actually he should be an admin for his good work. However, I really wish admins stop showing leniency towards such users as Alpha Beta Gaga or users who try to cry wolf when they do not have sufficient arguments. Instead of bringing arguments, such users simply cry "racism" (which is baseless accusation) in order to push their unscientific theories. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PKK and ASALA are recognised as a terrorist organisataions by UN, US and EU. but, look his edits in here.X[|X1] XII

Another useful link about his anti-Turkish identity.>V He love to change city names. >MM

He continue to show his real face.>CC I really want to meet him.>MMM

But this is my favourite.XXCC--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All those edits by Kansas Bear are correct. They are either undoing vandalism of users or following the manual of style per WP:WTA. Now the accusation of "Anti-X bigotery" is crying wolf and I hope it is dealt with. In other words, constant accusation of "anti-X" is an emotional ploy (when a person has run out of arguments) in order to give execuse to vandalism and original research. I hope admins really stop the users who commits vandalism with serious actions. Specially worst are the types who commit vandalism and when they are caught, they have nothing but accusing others with hallow emotional slogans. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

im going on!!!

Sari Gelin, a Turkish song, lyrics are Turkish. but it changed into Armenian by Kansas bearin here

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, Turkish politician, he converted into Kurdish by Kansas Bear. with fake sources

He is going to Zoology!!VVI

Huns are converted to the nation called Eurasian!here

Naturally, he has some problems with Turkish army. but compare the news and his comment.here

And yes, finally he changed regional names. here

He is still living in medival times. Kansas Bear you are not a Crusader.VV

He continue to glorify ASALA terrorists. here

Kara means black in Turkish. Kara-Khanid is Turkish word. But Kansas Bear thinks different.Kara-Khanid Khanatehere

According to Kansas Bear Atatürk was not a Turkfirst in here]--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear has problem with all Turkish people. This is real. He hates a nation, a country. He thinks Turkish people are monsters, evils. But as a bloodthirsty Turk, i never insulted any nation in my lifetime. I never suported any kind of terrorist organiastions. I never changed real things into fake ones. But Kansas Bear does. This is your job, if you shut your eyes to him, you would be the next one.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I have heard enough. Alpha Beta Gaga, your inflammatory conduct with respect to Kansas Bear must stop. It is not acceptable, per WP:NPA, to accuse other editors of belonging to terrorist organizations, or of hating a whole people, or of committing hate crimes, and so forth. In addition, your contributions show that your contributions are essentially limited to advancing your particular nationalist point of view. Editing in this manner is not compatible with Wikipedias principles and policies. Consequently, as an arbitration enforcement action, per WP:ARBAA2, you are topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from everything to do with Armenia and Armenians for the duration of six months. In addition, as a normal administrator action, you are indefinitely blocked for your incredibly severe personal attacks. Any administrator may unblock you, in response to an unblock request (see WP:GAB), if they are convinced that you understand what you did wrong and that you will not do it again. This sanction should not be construed as an endorsement of misconduct, if any, by Kansas Bear; but your diffs do not on their face demonstrate anything more than content disagreements.   Sandstein   21:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So would this editor be considered a sockpuppet? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or a meatpuppet. Blocked.  Sandstein   06:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE
I have to ask did you read any of the additional comment made by people besides T. Cannen's comment in the Admin discussion section? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Sandstein   06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just had to ask since I felt like you didnt take any of it into consideration The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lack of any noticeable reaction does not motivate people to dig into these difficult problems. - BorisG (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to ask since an editor I respect was indefinitely topic banned. I assumed Sandstein did but had to make sure as every one can make mistake and miss things. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings sanction
The above discussion has convinced me that my current sanction may not be well suited to the purpose of preventing edit-warring and other disruption with respect to. I am therefore considering to vacate the sanction and to replace it with the following:
 * No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either
 * minor edits as described at WP:Minor edit and marked as minor,
 * reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious WP:BLP violation,
 * or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus.


 * 1) The rules at WP:BAN apply to reverts of vandalism or BLP violations. (For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, for any reason, are neither minor edits nor vandalism.)
 * 2) For the purpose of this sanction, an edit may only be deemed to have consensus if the following minimum procedural requirements are met:
 * It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours.
 * In that section, the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal.
 * The proposal does not substantially duplicate a previous proposal that failed to achieve consensus, or seek to undo a previous change that did achieve consensus, if that previous proposal or change was made less than a month before the new proposal.
 * 1) The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof.


 * Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:DIGWUREN.

I invite comment by all interested editors about this proposal. It is linked to from the article talk page and WP:AN. To prevent editors from hastily changing the article while the proposal is still being discussed, I have full-protected the article for 72 hours.  Sandstein  22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I am heartened by your attempts to find a solution. Your proposal may be a bit unwieldy to administer, why not simply replace item 2 of the current sanction template with the provision that anyone violating item one will be summarily banned from the article (rather than the usual 24hour block). If they can't discipline themselves to abide by a simple 1RR rule, then they have no place contributing to the article any way. This would have a similar effect to what I presume you intended with the original sanction. --Martin (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is much better. It is pretty good in fact. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this your proposal is close to what is needed. At least, similar unwritten rules work for the WWII article, and lead to its considerable improvement. Although, in my opinion, the proposed rules are too detailed. I think, the essential things are: In connection to that, I propose:
 * 1) The major edits (not typos or copyedits) that have been done without discussion on the talk page can be reverted by anyone, and are not subject to 1RR limitations;
 * 2) The proposed changes should be supported by consensus; however, you "the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal" is redundantly detailed, and resembles a poll, which contradicts to WP policy. Just "support" means nothing, if no fresh arguments are provided. Therefore, I see no reason to re-define what does "consensus" mean.
 * 1) To protect the article fully for the period of several weeks;
 * 2) To discuss, on the article talk page, the most efficient way of future collaboration, using the WWII as an example (frankly speaking, I tried to propose that before, but people didn't listen);
 * 3) When the rules are elaborated and approved by all involved editors, to unprotect the article, leaving it semiprotected;
 * 4) If no common rules are elaborated in one month, unlock the article, but topic ban all users who was previously involved in the work on this article;
 * 5) (in the case of #4, relax, and wait for future edit wars with new participants :-))).
 * In my opinion, the users must realise that it is their last chance, otherwise, it will not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this sanction is definitely much better. But it can easily happen that someone makes changes that do not cause anyone's objections. Then such consensus-building process would not be required. However, if anyone objects to the change at article talk page, then such change should be reverted back by default, and the consensus-building process starts, as outlined above. This could make editing of the article much more efficient. Biophys (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest seeing first whether the original proposal works. I do not understand the argument against it - that it merely blocks editors who do not edit the article anyway.  The amount of discussion from various editors in an AE request concerning a 1RR violation shows that there is still considerable interest in this article.  TFD (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one who doesn't see a need for any of this? A few new editors recently showed up who were not familiar with the article's prior discussions and stepped on some toes when they boldly edited the article. I don't see this as an actual problem, and I certainly don't think we can "fix" this by banning editors who have not been misbehaving (and I see nothing at DIGWUREN which allows an administrator to do that, even if those editors had been banned in the past). I do think that there has been too much talk page bickering and not enough constructive article editing, but I don't know what could be realistically done to change that beyond the 1RR rule. Maybe extending the 1RR for a longer period would help. Maybe blocking edits to the lede for some period and requiring that every edit made to the body of the article has a citation would improve things. But maybe not. I'm pretty sure, however, that requiring talk page consensus for any edit to the article is a recipe for article paralysis and talk page bloat, which is an exaggeration of the current problem. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Anyone already banned from the page probably should be subject to 0RR, as there is a presumption of difficulty in editing collaboratively. BigK HeX (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that Sandstein is trying to progress beyond the type of restriction used at London Victory Parade of 1946. The edit warring there was successfully halted, but that kind of restriction was criticized. People said it was unfair to ban people from an article who had not edited at all there. Sandstein now gives up enumerating the set of people who can't edit, and tries to impose a consensus requirement. This seems hard to do. If we go in this direction, why not just place the article under full protection for a period of time, like three months, and have all changes approved using editprotect?  I am also influenced by User:AmateurEditor, who argues that it's not that big of a problem. Before switching to Sandstein's new restriction, why not either (a) do nothing for a period of time, or (b) try an interim step like a 1RR/week editing restriction?  EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the proposal by Sandstein makes a lot of sense as a general measure that could be used in many battleground articles. But it must first be tested, for example on "Mass killings".Biophys (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, thanks for the feedback. Full protection would be more restrictive than my proposal, because it would also prevent uncontroversial edits. Based on our "anyone can edit" credo, we do not normally indefinitely full-protect articles. 1R/week would not prevent slow-motion group edit-warring about POV tags, etc. For these reasons I do not think that these options would be preferable to my proposal.  Sandstein   07:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, your "a" and "b" is just a palliative, an attempt to postpone the resolution of the problem, not to resolve the issue. As I already wrote, we have a good example of a highly politicised article (WWII) where the users by themselves elaborated a productive way to collaborate without edit warring. The only thing we need is to force current players to elaborate mutually accepted rules. Since they will be elaborated by the users themselves, the probability that they will be observed will be higher. The key rule should be that any non-discussed addition/change can be reverted by anyone (and an attempt to re-insert reverted changes should be reported), therefore, the only possible way to introduce new edits is put present the new text to the talk page, discuss it, and, if no reasonable criticism follows, to add to the article. (It is important that the criticism must be reasonable, because bare oppose cannot be taken into account per WP:DEMOCRACY).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Hodja. I am among the most active editors working on the WWII article, and I already know that this scheme works. There is no need to test it, we just need to force the current users working on the Mass killing... article to accept similar rules mutatis mutandi. It is really important that they elaborate and accept these rules by themselves. In addition, that will make all other sanctions and limitations redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people did not accept anything, as clear from AE discussion. Therefore, some sanctions are needed. This sanction is good because it does not prevent people from participation, it is fair, it is consistent with policies, and it prevents edit-warring. Biophys (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. I do not question the need of additional sanctions, however, the more complicated the sanctions will be the more probable that they will be gamed. A restriction should be clear: you can edit, however, if the text you added has not been approved during the talk page discussion (no reasonable opposition during a reasonable time) it can be reverted by anyone, and anyone can report you if you try to do that again. The simpler rules are, the more likely that they will work. And, according to my experience, the rules the peoples developed by themselves are more likely to be observed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I balk at a proposal, like this one, that undermines the informal nature of the collaborative Wiki model. But it does, it seems, to regrettably have been made necessary by the defective and dysfunctional approach to editing this article that is being adopted by some editors. Where a sanction that imposes a rigid procedure for "measuring" consensus has become necessary, the one above that Sandstein wrote would, in my view, do the job. Moreover, it's well-written and a lot of consideration has obviously been put into it; for this, I commend him. As disappointed as I am that we have found ourselves having to impose this kind of sanction, I support its implementation. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an alternative model suggested at the article's talk which I believe to be superior in a number of ways. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with discussing this model on the article talk page is that a whole group of people cannot participate because of the current restriction. The model addresses the issue of ensuring consensus when adding content but doesn't appear that consensus is required when deleting content. Deletion of sourced content has been a persistent problem (the article has be subjected to a gazillion AfDs after all) and many of the edit wars have revolved around the restoration of particular deleted sourced content. It seems to me that the proposed model has a bias towards deleting content. --Martin (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Damn, that's no good for process, and an obvious hole in the proposal made on the talk page. I will raise this concern with the editor who proposed it an on the article talk page, suggesting the discussion of that proposal be moved here for process reasons.  Many thanks for spotting those issues Martintg. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, given that you have edit protected the article for 72 hours pending resolution of this, might not you also suspend this current restriction too so others can participate in this discussion Fifelfoo refers too? (In fact, EdJohnston's suggestion of fully protecting the article for three months and have all changes approved using editprotect is a good one, why not just extend the protection). --Martin (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If a talk page discussion could resolve the problems with this article, it would already have done so. At this time I am only interested in determining what level of administrative restrictions needs to apply to the article. Because Paul Siebert's proposal has not gathered much support so far, there's no reason to believe that this will change if the current talk page ban is lifted, and I'm therefore not lifting it until I have decided what new discretionary sanctions, if any, are required.   Sandstein   07:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The proposal given in the collapsed box "Procedural details" is still the best one on the table at the moment. A close runner up is AmateurEditor's "do nothing, except for the extending the 1RR restriction" proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noting that Libertarianism and in particular Talk:Libertarianism got demucked by a 6 month page lock and a talk page collapse policy for off topic discussion. The problem there was primarily off topic discussion.  A number of editors also appeared to self mediate by working on sourcing issues, which improved editorial collegiality.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank all concerned for expressing their opinion. No arguments have been advanced that convince me that the proposed sanction is inappropriate, unjust or unworkable. Several editors have expressed their support for the sanction, while some consider it unnecessary, for reasons that I find unpersuasive. Accordingly, I am enacting the proposed sanction, which replaces my previous sanction. Because I may not unilaterally overrule the previous AE sanction that provided for 1R/day, that sanction remains in force also, although it is probably redundant.  Sandstein  20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposals
Following the Fifelfoo's advice, I repost my proposal made on the MKUCR talk page to allow all users to discuss it. It is essentially similar to what I already proposed here, so if Sandstein will decide that I am simply spamming his talk page he is free to remove it. :-)

___________
 * I propose that all editors who work on this talk page need to elaborate common rules, according to which we will edit the article in future. It would be better if we do that by themselves, because in that case the rules are more likely to be genuinely observed. I propose the following simple rules:
 * "You can make any edit, however, if the text you added has not been approved during the talk page discussion (that means that there were no reasonable, or substantiated opposition during a reasonable time, e.g. few days), it can be reverted by anyone, and anyone can report you if you try to re-insert the text again. Polls are not allowed. Your support or oppose has zero weight unless you presented a fresh argument, desirably supported by a reliable source. If you have been repeatedly reverted for systematic re-addition of non-supported text, you will be topic banned permanently."


 * This rule will allow all users, including previously banned ones, to work on this article, because it leaves no space for classical edit warring. Accordingly, 1RR or 1RR per week should be abolished, because anyone should be able to revert any amount of undiscussed and unsupported edits. In my opinion, it is very important that we elaborate and accept these rule by ourselves. We already have an good example of efficient usage of these rules, the WWII article. What do you think about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

____________
 * Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In a response to Martin's comments, let me point out that any sourced content can and should be removed if it violates neutrality or NOR policy. These three parts of the policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, so just to provide a reference is not sufficient. Of course, if some material has been removed and then restored per consensus, it would not be correct to try to remove it again. However, the talk page history is always available, and it is easy to demonstrate that one or another piece of text has been supported by consensus. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that in may cases there is no consensus that a particular piece of sourced content violates WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV policy, hence there is no consensus for removal. If there is no consensus for removal, then it should not be removed. --Martin (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that this proposal is too difficult to enforce and diverges more strongly from Wikipedia's normal consensus-based editing model than mine does. I'm therefore not contemplating it as a discretionary sanction.  Sandstein   07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that a group of editors has tried to delete the entire article multiple times (8 I believe). Having failed in that effort, they simply remove reliably sourced information on the slightest pretext, edit warring until they get their way. Given that the editors are split about 50-50, the proposed solution will just lock up the article.
 * Problem with the article, Problem with the solution:

I believe that the only solution is to ban editors from the article if they remove reliably sourced information more than once. Administrators will have to spend the time to actually read what's going on, and given that the removals are almost all on one side, the administrators will have to be prepared to get their hands dirty, and prepare to face accusations of bias. But if you don't want an article where relevant reliably sourced information is locked out, then these are the steps you have to take. Smallbones (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are valid reasons to remove reliably sourced text - it may fail verfication, be irrelevant, be used as part of a synthesis, or give undue weight to one opinion. Neutrality of course has been the major issue throughout.  TFD (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also another problem with this article (which, in my opinion, is more serious): some editors tend to add the sourced material in such a manner that that comes to a contradiction with the two others major policies, neutrality and NOR. I by contrast to Smallbones, I do not think they should be banned, however, I believe these two policies should be carefully explained to them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RE: "it may fail verification" - check it out at WP:RSN in that case - I'm afraid what you really mean is "If I don't like it, I can remove it" That is the problem stated about.
 * RE: "give undue weight" - all you need to do is provide reliable sources that give the other side - something that you consistently refuse to do.
 * RE: "neutrality and NOR" - a plain statement of what a reliable source says is by definition neutral and not original research, yet you consistently remove them anyway
 * RE: "irrelevant" - well you are just trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on this one.
 * In short, you feel that you have the right to remove whatever plain statements taken from reliable sources that you want to on the slightest pretext; and I feel that editors who do that should be banned from the article. Smallbones (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliably sourced material I've removed or suggested removing has been: coatracking; the original research insertion of cases not given in reliable sources covering the topic but from the same state; the synthetic original research insertion of cases and states not given in reliable sources discussing the topic; the coatracking of material not covered by sources describing the topic into the article; the insertion of reliably sourced fringe opinion as if fact; the overstatement of reliably source opinion as if fact; the deliberate misstatement of material taken from reliable sources and used without context or definitions available in the reliable source so as to make simple quotes say other things; the recontextualisation of simple quotes to say things that they don't; the overstretching of one Valentino source (the book from his thesis) by forcing an example of a social sciences term or category to act as if a category; the explanation of factually occurring events as if a set of social science categories are accepted by academia; the use of an article which is about a set of contested social science theories to discuss a number of historical events at depth which have their own main articles; the inappropriate use of non-comparative single society case studies to produce an original research general claim that a social science category is supported by sociologists or historians; and, the phrasing of the article as if academically disputed categories are well accepted theoretical explanations for agreed facts. They're pretty egregious violations of basic policy.  They were also noted in the last AFD as outstanding issues.  Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true there are policy based reasons for the deletion of content. The problem is that in most cases there is no consensus that the content at issue in fact violates those policies. The last AFD resulted in keep, as I recall. --Martin (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there can be policy-based reasons to remove sourced information. I won't therefore contemplate any discretionary sanction that forbids such removals. The content or non-content of articles needs to be determined by consensus.  Sandstein  07:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg
Hi there Sandstein. I wanted to let you know that I've tagged File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg for deletion under CSD F5 (it's currently an unused non-free file). The reason I did so is that we now have File:Jared_Loughner_USMS.jpg, which is a mugshot produced by the US Marshals Service and therefore a free image. As you know, I don't think we should have any mugshot before Loughner is convicted, but the removal in this case is strictly on the grounds of the non-free mugshot being replaceable. There's a bit more discussion at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner, where some other editors agreed that the file should be removed at this point. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

AE Fifelfoo
In fairness, you might consider issueing a warning to Tentontunic as well, who has this month made the following comments on the talk page.
 * I thanked you on your talk page, in retrospect I wish I had not. 23:33, 15 February 2011
 * You argue on communist terrorism to no end, you appear to be tendentious in your approach to articles which may be critical of communism in fact. Did you not just get warned for just this behavior? 23:14, 16 February 2011
 * the article owners will remove content as they see fit, and quite happily ignore those they disagree with on the talk page 19:59, 22 February 2011


 * So instead of responding and asking for clarification you choose to ignore it? Thus proving my point. 20:19, 22 February 2011

TFD (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, i noticed that editors are continuing to comment on the AE discussion thread even after it has been closed. TFD (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, claims of misconduct without diffs are a waste of your and my time.  Sandstein   18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now added. TFD (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You lodged an AE request against Tentontunic just recently, but you never mentioned it then. --Martin (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I filed the report for 1RR and did not think of mentioning them at the time. Two of the edits occured after the AE report was closed.  TFD (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@Sandstein, you may want to log Fifelfoo's formal warning here. --Martin (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While the two editors above have important points. I have continuing concerns regarding Tentontunic's IDHT behaviour, an aggressive and tendentious refusal to adhere to NOR
 * Introduces a new source while requesting AGF
 * citation provided discovered to be irrelevant and outside article scope
 * a second editor notices the reference is entirely outside of article topic
 * Demonstrates they do not understand article history, or, the basis of the article's existence (the Valentino text which underwrites the article)
 * OR behaviour, seeking a personal definition of mass killing later, foot tapping
 * states a bias lying outside of the article's scope (dispossessive mass killings, as given, and its theoretical analogues)
 * Editor explains the article stems from Valentino's definition at 21:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * personal definitions of "mass killing"
 * and so on forward through diffs you've already read
 * The only source supporting a generalised claim about Communism as the basis for these mass killings (as opposed to "democides" which covers non-communist states, etc) is Valentino. It is at the core of the article's structure.  IDHT behaviour is an aggressive form of tendentious editing.  Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

People, my talk page is not a dispute resolution forum. Please WP:SEEKHELP elsewhere with respect to your content and personal disagreements, which administrators are not empowered to resolve, except perhaps by way of a mutual topic or interaction ban, which both of you are headed for if you continue in this vein. Neither of the groups of diffs either of you provides requires administrator intervention, at least not based on the obscure and confusing explanations given by Fifelfoo ("foot tapping"?). But if you want my advice, it would be to disengage from each other and the "mass killings" article for a while.  Sandstein  23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing the same arguments presented, refuted, and repeated by people not adhering to basic policy over multiple years is intensely frustrating. Dispute resolution systems fail to resolve tendentious editing and IDHT behaviour.  ARB has recently observed the civility implications of tendentious behaviour and IDHT on controversial articles at SAQ.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate to sound like a snitch or informant, but shouldn't the above user be added to the List of editors placed on notice at the WP:DIGWUREN page? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in the least, you're just requesting that Sandstein do their job, as previously requested by Martintg above, and noted by myself. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, done.  Sandstein   20:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The above sanction modification thread
Might it be sensible to move that thread to WP:AE? Discretionary sanctions are the purview of individual administrators so there is of course no obligation to do so. But that forum would allow third-party input (few uninvolved people, save those you notified, will see this thread) and so avoid the perception of there being a selectiveness about the audience here. My worries are more based on principle, but I think it's important anyway. Unrelatedly, and for whatever it's worth, I'm impressed at how deep your reconsideration of your sanctions have been. Regards, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 10:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, yes, I did not start this whole discussion at AE because that board is really not for community discussion, but for requesting enforcement. We could give it a proper talk page, though, and hold such discussions there. In this case, I believe that by linking to the thread from AN and the article talk page I have given the process sufficient openness. Thanks, by, the way, for your input. Regards,  Sandstein   18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandstein that this thread has been publicized to the appropriate degree. It concerns only a single article-level sanction on the Mass killings article. If a new type of sanction was going to be applied to multiple articles, then one could follow the example used by PhilKnight, who opened up WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles last November. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I anticipate that sooner or later the same sanctions will be imposed on other Communism related articles which have been a battleground during last few years. Therefore, to save our time it would be better to keep that in mind during this discussion. I believe we need to open a separate page (similar to the page mentioned by EdJohnston) and inform all users who edit or are likely to edit these articles to make sure that they all got an opportunity to express their opinion about proposed restrictions. Personally, I think they should not be sanctions, but editing restrictions assumed by the users semi-voluntarily. I see no big problem with that, because that seems almost inevitable when we deal with so sensitive topics.
 * Although I generally support Sanstein's proposal, it has one major flaw, in my opinion. It is designed by an administrator, it reflects the administrator's viewpoint, and it is supposed to be implemented by an administrator. As a result, it is redundantly formal. However, since the page is being edited by two opposing camps these camps can perfectly monitor each other by themselves provided that two simple rules are implemented:
 * If you add a new undiscussed edit you will likely (although not obligatory) be reverted; if you try to re-revert you will be reported and inevitably blocked (two diffs on the ANI is enough for any administrator to do so);
 * If your proposed change has been discussed on the talk page and has been supported, you may implement your changes into the article, and an attempt to remove this text will be considered as a disruptive editing.
 * I am almost 100% sure that after some transitional period that scheme will start to work quite efficiently, an almost no administrator's interference will be needed in future. The only thing which is needed is the participation of the users themselves in elaboration and approval of these rules.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that the folks at a Delightful Wikipedia-critique Website That I Shan't Name&trade; have some things to say about these sanctions. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 15:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A Question.
Are you the administrator who deals with articles related to communism? Tentontunic (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No.  Sandstein   23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I really ought to have been told regarding the sections above? Tentontunic (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why?  Sandstein   23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? If people are pressing for sanctions against me, do you not think I ought to be informed? Tentontunic (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I did not see that the "AE Fifelfoo" section was about you. Yes, you should have been informed by the people who were raising concerns about your conduct.  Sandstein   00:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried to remain polite in the articles mentioned, might I ask you, am I being unreasonable? I have decided to remove myself from the mass killings article for a few weeks and shall try to continue to work on improving the communist terrorism article, I would appreciate you looking at it on occasion, should you have the time. Tentontunic (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't easily look at anything that's not linked to. And I'm not particularly interested in both communism and terrorism, so I'm unlikely to be of help in improving the article. Sorry.  Sandstein   00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not expect you to have an interest, in either communism or terrorism. I had hoped given this article is also under the Diguren thing you would be keeping an eye out as it were. No matter, I am sure The Four Deuces RFC straight after an edit protect consensus has no bearing on matters. I know I ought not complain about such, but it is annoying to finally manage an actual edit to an article, then an RFC is underway, another 30 days of arguing, really? To what end. Sorry for rantingm but this is, well, annoying. Tentontunic (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins don't resolve editing disputes. See WP:DR for how to do that. What we can do is to take certain actions to protect Wikipedia (the project, not anyone's opinion of what it should read) against disruption on request. In the WP:DIGWUREN context, such requests should be made at WP:AE but only if you can show convincingly, with diffs, that others violate important Wikipedia norms. Unspecific complaints and rants without links, which always annoys me immensely, are a waste of your and my time.  Sandstein   00:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After a few drinks, who does not like a rant? I did of course not try to annoys you immensely, although I am quite sure I could if I tried, in fact I suspect this is doing the job. Look, I am not going to produce diffs, nor jump through hoops. Did that, you closed it :~) (is that the right face?) Take care and sorry to have been a pain. Tentontunic (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness AE request
What do you mean by this? "not to make wide-ranging (and unnecessary) accusations about others without proof" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "important note for admins", which is wholly unhelpful, even if it were true, because AE requests are evaluated on the basis on the evidence and not on the basis of who submits the evidence.  Sandstein   00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy
The latest comments by JJG has been brought by both Nsaum75 and Mbz1 about 3-4 times before at enforcement, I have replied to them 3-4 times at the enforcement, and now he has copy pasted the exact same accusations one more time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but claims of any sort without diffs to back them up are absolutely worthless. Can you please link, in your statement about the enforcement request, to the place(s) where you already responded to these accusations?  Sandstein   09:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna reply to everything soon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"The other edits, while problematic"
"The other edits, while problematic"

Could you please point out what edits you are referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The older ones you refer to above. Can you please point to the archived AE requests where, as you claim, these have already been posted?  Sandstein   19:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted some diffs at the enforcement. These are also complete cases: (Pantherskin and Chesdovi sections) here: . Ynhockey is also an involved admin who shouldn't have responded where he did. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I was unaware that you were having exchanges with SupremeD outside the AE forum. In any event, please have a look at the last comment I made at AE and carefully look at the bottom paragraph and review the diff (specifically, the bottom part of the exchange). Perhaps you overlooked it. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter some.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reading the diff and acknowledging what I've been desperately trying to convey to you. As for your second question concerning the remaining part of the edit please see this answer to precisely the same question asked by Slp1--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Community forum" clarification
Sandstein, in the procedural details of the sanctions you imposed at Mass killings under Communist regimes, it says "To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal." Can you please clarify what community forum you meant by that? Also, will you be monitoring the sanctioned article to see how the sanctions are working? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Community forum" means any appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:CCN, or if that fails WP:ANI. If you think a proposal by you has consensus, you should post a request to such a forum for an administrator to evaluate and close the discussion. I've watchlisted the article for the time being and will look at developments to the extent time permits.  Sandstein   20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)