User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/November

Mass killings under Communist regimes
You might recall this article. I suggest that Paul Siebert does not understand WP:CONSENSUS as his posts at

''Reverted the changes that have been made in violation of the editing restrictions. See talk page'',

where he somehow feels he alone determines consensus,

and with the (ominous?) ''otherwise I'll have to take other steps. You have 48 hours''

none of which sounds remotely like seeking consensus by a few miles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement, as I've come to seen it as a waste of time due to insufficient Arbitration Committee support. I recommend that you make a report at WP:AE if you think this requires administrative action.  Sandstein   21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not at that level yet, but I feel that as you placed the restriction, it is you who well ought to be made aware of the problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, it might be helpful for an experienced, neutral, temperate and collaborative admin to cast an eye over the discussion in this section, and also the Shall we try again discussion that follows it, with a view to negotiating a way through the impasse, stabilizing the article's lead in a version that at least complies with the editing restrictions while content discussion continues, and heading off what looks like a nascent revert war. Can you suggest anyone? Writegeist (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lede 3" complies with all "editing restrictions" as far as I can tell. The only one threatening a "revert war" was Paul Siebert with the "48 hours or else" deadline.  Cheers.  Glad to see you agreed with me at Johann Hari by the way. Collect (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Writegeist, I think the place to ask for somebody like that would be WP:DRN, although admins have no particular authority in content matters. There are various other options for getting out of editorial impasses described at WP:DR. I, myself, regret to say that I have had quite enough of the poisonous editing environment that surrounds this sort of topic to attempt to contribute to that discussion. Also, after a look at the page history and at the restrictions currently in place, I get the feeling that if I were to involve myself with this nonsense again I would have to block almost everybody who has edited the article since February, although that might be a solution of sorts too.  Sandstein   19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Collect: No names, no pack drill. I carefully refrained from pointing fingers re. revert warring. The accusatory mode that's so much in evidence in relation to this difficult article is far from helpful.


 * Sandstein, thank you for your advice and thoughts. I empathize! Writegeist (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, I have a question about the edit restrictions you imposed on the MKuCR article. You procedure seems to tell nothing about the mechanism of removal of the content that has been added without proper discussion. Is removal of such a content deemed to be an ordinary revert, or it can be done according to more simple rules? For example, if an editor X added some content without discussion on the talk page, can I simply revert him, according to your rules, or I have to discuss this revert on the talk page and wait for the response from other users? I fully understand that you are not interested to discuss this subject any more, however I would be grateful if you explained me the course of your thought during the time when you were writing those rules. Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that, as in normal cases of edit warring, a revert is not any less edit-warring just because it reverts an edit that is itself edit-warring. The only exceptions to this are reverts of vandalism and BLP violations, which are exempt from the prohibition against edit-warring. For this reason, the restriction I imposed does not provide for an exception to allow editors to revert edits that they think violate the restriction. I am of the view, though, that administrators may choose to revert edits that violate the restriction as part of the enforcement of the restriction.  Sandstein   22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, according to your procedure, a user that makes illegitimate edit can be sanctioned, but the edit he made may stay (if admin decided to ignore it)? However, that creates a situation when admins appear to be de facto involved in content issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, in cases where editors are blocked for normal edit-warring, their last revert is not normally also undone, precisely so as not to involve the admin in a content decision. That's why I, as an enforcing administrator, would only sanction the editors who make the edits violating the restriction (the original edit and its revert) but not make a revert myself. Other admins my however have different views about this and might prefer to always revert to the status quo ante as well.  Sandstein   23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, in a situation when one or more users added some content in violation of your procedure and refuse to support its removal during the talk page discussion, the only legitimate way to revert these changes is via the block of these users? If that is the case, then your sanctions just create more combative atmosphere, because it is impossible to collaborate with a person you are constantly reporting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my view is that it allows cooperative editors to work on the article after the uncooperative ones have all been removed from the game via blocks or other sanctions. Besides, on Wikipedia as elsewhere, we do have to collaborate with people we dislike. Or work on something else.  Sandstein   23:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have to collaborate with those we dislike. However, by constant reporting each other we will create a situation when we dislike each other even more. I always tried to avoid ANI and AE at any cost, and I do not find your approach fruitful..--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, what did you mean when you left 1RR restriction in force? That each revert is supposed to be announced in advance on the talk page?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask the admin who imposed that restriction how exactly it is supposed to work. I left it in place because I had no authority to lift it.  Sandstein   23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, 1RR is not a part of your restrictions? Interesting. Maybe you admins should come together and create some consistent rules for this article? Remember, the primary admins' role is to provide comfortable conditions for the users that write Wikipedia, and it is not easy to work in a situation when even the admins themselves are not sure what one or another rule means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure what the 1RR rule means, but I'm not the person to ask about it because I didn't impose it. I don't see any potential for conflict between the restrictions, at any rate. If an edit has consensus after several days as required by my restrictions, it can't violate the 1RR rule. In this sense, my restriction extends the 1RR rule and makes it redundant. As far as I can tell, the restrictions that currently apply are internally consistent. If you obey them, you will be able to work comfortably.  Sandstein   23:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Under "edit" you mean "revert"? I interpreted your restrictions as that consensus is needed to add/modify some content, whereas reverts can be done independently on that, because the change unsupported by consensus can be removed by anyone. That is essentially the same rules that are currently in force (unofficially) for the WWII article: one has to obtain consensus for addition/modification of the article, however, no consensus is needed for revert of the changes unsupported by consensus. These rules work perfectly (it became a GA recently), and I thought you implied something of that kind when you applied your restrictions. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, a revert is also an edit that is subject to the restrictions. I think that I have made my thinking clear enough now.  Sandstein   23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that now. I find that neither reasonable nor helpful. Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. If I understand the situation correctly, other admins have no authority to modify/amend the restrictions imposed by you. In connection to that, could you please amend the text of your rules to take into account what have been said during this discussion, namely, that the revert of the illegitimately added materials should be done only via consensus on the talk page of AE request? Something of that kind:
 * "(For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, as well as the revert of the edits made in violation of the instruction described below, are neither minor edits nor removal of vandalism.)" (The addition I propose is underlined).

and:
 * "4. The changes that have been made in violation of this instruction (see #2) can be removed only if such removal is supported by consensus, or by means of AE request."

I believe these modifications will help to avoid similar problems in future. Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't strike me as really necessary. Also, any modification to the restrictions that may be required should be evaluated and made by administrators who are active in AE, i.e., not by me. I won't disagree with any change the administrators currently evaluating this issue at WP:AE deem necessary.  Sandstein   19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD question
Regarding your closing of Articles for deletion/Christian-Heinrich, Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein - would it be alright to see if I can recreate an article on him as a stub, referenced to reliable print sources, without all the genealogy? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the stub demonstrates that he meets WP:BIO, certainly.  Sandstein   06:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

AE request
Paul Siebert has filed his ultimatum-promised action at AE, and seems to have forgotten to notify you. I am doing so, as I feel the fact that I have acted as best as humanly possible in accord with your strictures, and that my posts here show that, that his act is almost an abuse of the process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why I should have been notified. As I said above, I am not currently active in AE, and I leave it to other admins to determine whether and how to address the situation that is the subject of the AE request to which you refer.  Sandstein   13:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified you because I referred specifically to the colloquy above wherein I brought your attention to the affair. It was not intended in any way otherwise, though I rather think Paul well ought to have made the notification. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD canvassing at non-WP forum
Hi, you recently closed Articles for deletion/New Hampshire Liberty Alliance; I've found via a Google search that the article's author used an external forum to solicit anti-deletion entries to the discussion. WP:CANVASS doesn't appear to explicitly cover non-WP solicitation, but it clearly violates the guideline. What action should be taken, and does this invalidate the AFD discussion? Thanks, Rostz (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Collecting votes on an external forum is clearly inadmissible. I think that pointing out that the previous discussion was compromised by canvassing would be a good reason for starting a new deletion discussion. This will allow whoever closes the second discussion to discount opinions that may have been canvassed.  Sandstein   22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest WP:False consensus gives grounds for any admin to disregard any such result (based on ArbCom dicta). IOW, you could have started it anew from scratch.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm willing to redo the RFD, but beforehand I'd appreciate a warning issued from an administrator to the article author about canvassing, thanks. Rostz (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice
-- DQ  (t)   (e)  06:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampf in the Arabic language
I have requested that this article be relisted for deletion. When the deletion discussion took place, the article included a number of claims (for example, that Mein Kampf was a bestseller in the Arab world, or that it was published by the Palestinian Authority) have been deleted or refuted in the article. What remains is not notable.

I don't know if I have done this relisting procedure correctly, but I trust you guys to cover my tracks. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Hello, I noticed you commented on the Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Missoula, Montana. There is a related discussion on some of the buildings from that list at Articles for deletion/First Interstate Center (Missoula). Any insights and opinions you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you --JonRidinger (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

carl hirshmann
hi i made one or two changes to improve the article. ip changes are acceptable on wikipedia. the article is in a much better chape now than before.

--86.185.226.46 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see Talk:Carl Hirschmann.  Sandstein   19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * try to respect other peoples comments and research. 1/ difficuld to talk of a carrer, the term business seems more appropriate. 2/ seems more appropriate to report that the club Le Baron is now open, one can find lots of references for that. 3/ seems blatant that Hirschmann was arrested and imprisoned already and the 14 month sentance seems real facts.--86.185.226.46 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please copy your comments to Talk:Carl Hirschmann so that we may concentrate the discussion in one place?  Sandstein   22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Football leb
hello! could you please clear for me why you deleted the article Rabih Najjar, we already fixed the article to meet wikipedia standards, and provided the article with the available web sources, and we also proved that our country web sources are poor in football material and till now most of the Lebanese football clubs do not have a website not only a web archive, and we are trying our best to shed the light on some of our notable players, please help us. yes i'm new to Wikipedia, and sure you know better than we do, but of course there's a way to fix the deletion and to continue creating articles on our players. please reply me, counting on your help talk  —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Hi. The reason why I deleted the article is that a community discussion at Articles for deletion/Rabih Najjar concluded with a consensus that it should be deleted.  Sandstein   16:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your reply,and they were right about the first version of the article, the creator of Rabih Najjar didn't put reliable sources for the article, but i really worked hard and was able to provide this article with the sources needed and i even added a hole section on this former player who is now a notable coach in my country. and please do check other Lebanese football players biography on Wikipedia and you will notice that they have even less sources and their biography was not deleted. could you please check the improvement of this article from day one till 2 days ago and if it will convince you undo the delete, and if no i will no more bother you. please give me this chance in order to proceed creating articles about other notable Lebanese players. our country deserve this chance, and i was chocked that at first, one of the admins didn't know that the Lebanese premier league is a notable league, and was one of the reasons to put this article to deletion football leb (talk)

please reply me soon, really counting on your help and your advice football leb (talk), 21 November 2011


 * Hi. It doesn't matter whether I think the player is notable. I have to do what consensus decides, and consensus decided that he is not notable. You'd need to find a new consensus at WP:DRV after finding new sources that were not present in the deleted article.  Sandstein   20:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

hi, thank you for your reply but the deletion policy says to contact directly the admin who deleted the article and to try to resolve the issue on their talk page, therefore i was asking your help because you can undelete the article and this is why i was telling you check the article in question and for me it does matter if you think the player is notable, the solution is in your hands pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase Football leb 12:06, 22 November 2011


 * No, that does not convince me. I know nothing about Lebanese football and can't determine whether the player is notable, and at any rate my opinion is not dispositive for the article's restoration.  Sandstein   21:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

i can see that the admin who resigned from Wikipedia and wrote above is absolutely right, no offence but the new deletion policy sucks! since u know nothing about the Lebanese football why you took the initiative to delete the article? u should have left the debate open between me and admins who tried to know a little bit about the football in my country and had the courage to undo a PROD they put on the article and to admit that they were wrong to question our league, and for the records the article was fixed after they questioned the notability of the league and the player (who is a football coach now, own a football academy in my country and was chosen to train the female national team). take in consideration that we provided the article with all available sources and if you take a look they are more than one, and in your policy one source is enough to undelete the article, i understand that u did your job and u delete it, now u should do the same and to undelete it (it takes only a few minutes to check the article, and i'm sure you will take the right decision) Football leb 20:51, 26 November 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football leb (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. My job as closing admin is only to determine whether there is consensus to delete the article. I do not need to have, and indeed do not have, an opinion about whether that consensus is correct or not. As I said, you do not need to convince me, you need to convince the community at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i guess you are right i misunderstood the rules on Wikipedia, i read that i have to resolve my problem on your talk page first since you are the closing admin, and now u are telling me i have to convince the community at WP:DRV i can see there is no way out from this cycle and i feel lost in those rules. but i will take your advice and try on the WP:DRV page, but since i'm not the writer of the article and i don't have a copy on it could you please send me the article so i could be able to defend it in a good way Football leb 22:12, 26 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football leb (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved it to User:Football leb/Rabih Najjar. You can improve it there and, once you believe that the problems because of which it was deleted are fixed, ask for its restoration at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   21:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your help but do i have a time limit to do so? Football leb (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2011


 * Not as such, but the article can be deleted again if it is not improved for a long time.  Sandstein   21:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help i really appreciate it, will be missing our dispute Football leb (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2011

HIRSCHAMNN
Please update article immnediately according to the facts and references listed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Hirschmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.226.46 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)