User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/February

Hello
I would appreciate it if I wasn't blocked. It was an honest mistake, which I admitted to, and I promised that it wouldn't happen again. I even tried to undo my edit there, only to find that someone else already did so. For the record, nobody told me to revert myself at Beersheba. All they said was to not violate the topic ban any further.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted - I'll wait for other uninvolved administrators to comment.  Sandstein   09:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD
After you relisted this AfD, the discussion sadly deteriorated, although prior to that some users tried to have to a reasonable discussion. With this kind of debating, I doubt that anyone impartial will bother to review the AfD and as many of these AfDs it may end up as a votestacking competition. Is there a board, where I can bring the AfD to the attention of wider audience? I tried the notability board, but it didn't garner any attention there.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The topic relates to WikiProject Serbia and WikiProject Kosovo, so you could also mention the AfD on the talk pages there. As to the specific edits you mention, they may result in a discretionary sanction per WP:ARBMAC if you report them (and any similar recent edits exhibiting an ethno-nationalist battleground mentality) at WP:AE   Sandstein   13:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (2nd nomination)
I noticed that you closed the above discussion as No Consensus by discounting a couple of !votes. Though I have voted "delete" there and hence my opinions may be construted as biased, I respect your closure as an admin. I would like you to clarify why you chose to discredit the "delete" !votes of a couple of editors (who evidently didn't put forth policy based rationale) while not other "keep" !votes. Mar4d referenced a previous afd in their !vote and their further comments were rebutted IMO and Lyk4's opinions were convincingly rebutted without a reply from them to clarify. I've seen many an afd which were relisted multiple times since policy based opinions were few and far between. I cannot understand why you chose to close this instead of relisting. With so few participants, and the surge of participants after the previous relisting, I was expecting another relisting instead of a closure. I would highly appreciate if you could explain your rationale for this closure. Suraj T  13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Per WP:RELIST, "relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended", and in this case I felt that there had been sufficient participation to establish a no consensus outcome. As concerns the "keep" opinions, I normally discount "keep" opinions only if they completely fail to address salient "delete" arguments. In this case, both "keep" opinions did address the relevant issue, i.e. sourcing, therefore I couldn't discount them. Whether these arguments were rebutted or not is not for me as closer to judge.  Sandstein   13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. :) I still have a couple of points I'd like you to address, if you don't mind. I am genuinely curious, and, you may take your own time in replying to this when you are free, as I am not in any hurry.
 * 1. The salient delete argument was WP:NEO. There was no source presented either in the article nor in the deletion discussion, which "explained" the "term". Hence IMHO, the delete argument in the nom statement was not addressed in any of the "keep" arguments. There are tons of neologisms out there and not all of them deserve a wikipedia article unless atleast one reliable source takes up the neologism and explains it. Also, sorry if I come across as blunt, but "X no. of sources were presented, hence article should be kept" is an useless argument unless atleast some of the sources are determined to be suitable for inclusion; if presented in a deletion discussion, the suitability should be determined by consensus before said sources are considered for closing the discussion.
 * 2. Quoting you: "Whether these arguments were rebutted or not is not for me as closer to judge.", I, and any reasonable editor, would expect any admin who closes a deletion discussion in which one has participated, to close the discussion after considering each and every comment in the discussion, whether or not they were "keeps", "deletes", "rebuttals", "opinions", or "ip comments" before "deciding" on the closure. Can you please explain why you chose to ignore the rebuttals to the "keep" arguments in this discussion? Suraj  T  15:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, one could of course discuss in detail which weight should have been given to any individual opinion, but I'd rather not, because I frankly don't have the time for taking apart discussions at this level of detail. I consider that at the end of the day, my job as closer is to look at the discussion as a whole and determine whether there's a policy-based consensus to delete the page. In this case, I am of the opinion that there is not. You're of couse free to get a second opinion at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   09:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only part I agree with you is "fuck that article, coz who cares". I don't have anymore time for a DRV than you, as an admin, had in reviewing the discussion for that closure. If you think you don't have time for answering in detail, legitimate questions about your actions as an administrator, you should stop closing contentious deletion discussions. I am entitled to ask what points you considered and what you disregarded in a deletion discussion as I don't have admin rights and you have used a previlege, that "ordinary users" like me !voted in favour of you having it. The answer: "I looked at the discussion as a whole and decided it favoured X viewpoint. And I can't say anything more. Go to DRV" doesn't need to come from a trusted member like an administrator. Any inexperienced editor can close any discussion with this lame reason you gave. I know you are busy, and hence, repeatedly asked you to review the discussion and reply when you had free time, but you chose otherwise. I initially came here to learn about your decision making process, but your offputting attitude is disappointing. Suraj  T  18:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of the AE issues and consequent bogus warning
You failed to address most of the substantive points I rasied, and only made it even clearer that you are missing most of the salient facts, and simply reacted in a knee-jerk fashion without doing any background research into the dispute. The fact that you did not even know about the AN that led up to the AE is why your warning makes no sense and is grossly inappropriate. Every accusation you have made about my post to AE [yes, I kept saying "AN" yesterday when I meant "AE"), e.g. that I made allegations without proof and that the allegations aren't relevant, is patently false, but you'd only know that if you were following the entire issue instead of wading into the middle of a conversation/process you were not a part of. It is bizarre and unacceptable to issue warnings, especially ones that have no-further-notice blocking consequences, without doing any homework at all to see whether your action is justified or even based on a clear understanding of the facts.  You've been missing almost all of the facts, background, context and history of the issue, and explicitly assuming bad faith, yet willy-nilly threatened everyone you disagreed with anyway. That's not what the admin bits are for. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Please note that. Note further that User:Noetica, another recipient, has already indicated, before your pointless boot dropped, intent to resign as well if sanctioned by AE for ultimately doing the right thing. I regret having criticized Noetica for taking such a stance, since I now find myself considering it, too. The "you can now be blocked without further notice by anyone with a hare up their butt" warning we received was based on errors and misinterpretations, unjust and invalid, and I'm not going to stand for being treated like a wikicriminal this way. I've devoted unbelievable amounts of time and effort to this project and I'll be damned if I'll be lynched for it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replied to your message on your talk page. I of course regret the resignation of any productive editor, but how and where they want to spend their time is ultimately their choice. I don't think that I'll be able to say much in this regard that I haven't said already on your talk page, so please do not consider it impolite if I choose not to reply to any continued messages concerning the warning I issued.  Sandstein   13:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried over there one more time. Sandstein, at this point you are strongly coming across as defying all reason, down to the level of basic, rudimentary logic, convinced of your own righteousness as Defender of the Wikifaith, no matter how many wikisoldiers die on your battlefield against whatever it is you're so stalwart about (it's not really clear, because you're not making any sense in your increasingly convoluted contortions to avoid admitting having made a mistake), and clearly refusing to get the point – in a way that raises real, WP:CONSENSUS problems.  You are censuring, with a proven lack of facts, and based on proven errors in interpretation, four editors whom  did the right thing in bringing User:Apteva to WP:AN for topic-banning and now blocking. You are blatantly defying a community consensus, overseen by admins at AN, that  the WP:AE request Apteva filed in questionable faith and which gained no consensus, and you have take upon yourself to incorrectly enforce ARBATC, on the basis of this bogus AE case, against editors for making posts that are not even subject to its terms because they are about disruption, not style/titles. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  14:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Appalled and dismayed at your destructiveness
I tried to head this off. Now you've shown just how ham-fisted admins can be. How many excellent, valuable, talented editors have resigned over your needless "warnings".

I'm disgusted in your actions. Tony  (talk)  13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear you say that, but I believe (and the other uninvolved administrator in the AE thread agreed) that I was acting within the remit of the Arbitration Committee's decision by warning them of the Committee's reminder not to personalize MOS disputes. While each decision by an editor to leave the project is regrettable, that decision is something I have no influence about. Fortunately, our experience indicates that not all such decisions are final.  Sandstein   13:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not think an editor who has wikipedia's interest at heart would leave over such a trivial thing as a warning. You guys are blowing it out of all proportion. When I read the comments on AE, I too was concerned that some of them were over the top. I thought of suggesting a warning, and before I made the suggestion, I saw it implemented. I thought a warning was a balaced response. But even if it was not, it is such a trivial sanction! Get over it and move on! If, as you say, your edits are so valuable and constructive, then by all means, continue applying your energy where it is most needed, not to escalate this storm in a teacup! - BorisG (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not just a warning. It's an extra-special, prepare-to-be-blocked-without-notice  form of warning, a special ArbCom number that a) has stigma attached to it, and b) constitutes a final notice that means that any admin for any even vaguely imaginable reason can long-term block us for any alleged WP:ARBATC problem. Given that Sandstein himself clearly cannot even tell the difference between a disruptive user behavior dispute that once upon a time originated in a style disagreement several month ago, on the one hand, and a style dispute on the other, there is no reason to expect all other admins to do so. Thus, it is effectively a topic ban against all participation in style or title decisions, since continuing to particpate in them will pretty much inevitably lead to a block, yet there was no community process and consensus, as at WP:AN or WP:ANI behind the topic ban, it's just a de facto one put into place by one overly righteous admin who admits himself that he did not even read or know about the WP:AN and WP:RFC/U that led up to the WP:AE request he responded to. He not only doesn't even know what's going on, the  to find out.  And this seems to be being tolerated.  Those are non-trivial reasons someone might consider quitting the project. So is being treated like a wikicriminal for having done the right thing in the first place, as supported by the consensus at WP:AN and even in another WP:AE request against Apteva. PS: I find it pretty offensive that you'd make a WP:NOTHERE accusation – a clear assumption of bad faith – against anyone just because they would vote with their feet as a matter of principle in response to false accusations and punitive labeling by an admin who literally refuses to find out what the actual facts are and revisit his hasty, ill-informed decision. I've actually quit real-world, paying jobs over less, as have many other principled people I know.  One of the main reasons people are leaving WP in droves and not coming back is abusive treatment by admins and WP:OWNish editors.  I'm not gone just yet, because I think Sandstein will either see reason, or formal process can overturn what he's done. Which is not just a trivial warning like you suggest. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * [EC] The other admin (uninvolved? maybe; bears looking into) simply added a "me too" !vote, and no rationale. I would bet US$100 right now that this admin did not read the AN case that preceded the AE either, and thus had no better idea what the heck is actually going on than you do. I'm going to go ask, just for the heck of it. [I have now done so, at User talk:Cailil. 15:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)] . Moot point anyway, since no one else at the AE case supported your idea of throwing warnings around. And these are not really warnings in the usual admonition by an admin sense, they are special threats that carry the weight of ArbCom.  They aren't verbiage, they are official notices the existence of which mean that any admin can now long-term-block any thus-"warned" editor for any vaguely defined, even imaginary transgression that allegedly involves style or titles, with no further notice because "we were warned".  Given that you clearly cannot understand that this extended Apteva RFC/U and AN and AE case itself is not a style/title issue, but a user behavior issue that arose, months ago, when said disruptive user refused to stop forum shopping a style issue he never could get consensus on anywhere, this does not bode well.  I've spent hours explaining to you why it's not a style case, and you still don't get it.  Expecting that all other admins on the system, combined, will never ever misinterpret a non-style issue as a style issue and wrongly block me or Noetica or Ohconfucius falsely for violating ARBATC when we really didn't, is utterly unreasonable.  So, when I quit because of you, are  going to work double-time to make up for the next  edits I was going to make over the next }}? Years of never once being blocked, SPI'd, RFC/U'd, ArbCom'd, AN/I'd legitimately, templated legitimately, or otherwise sanctioned, ever, for anything, I might add.  I'm am, and for years have been, one of the 400 most-active editors, and you've basically just told me to go fuck myself, in oh-so-civil wording.  You don't even understand what civility actually means; you simply think it means using nice phrasing.  Willfully dropping ArbCom-threat-laden warnings for reasons that have clearly proven unjustifiable is not civil by any stretch of the imagination, nor does responding to complaints about it with the suggestion I should go do something else.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great stuff Sandstein, but admins are supposed to help the encylopedia, not lumber around issuing unjustified threats. Yes, no one should get excited about horizontal lines, and no one should object to the stigma of a threat placed in a neat box on their talk page, but there has been massive disruption and you are warning the wrong people. If you were correct, and if you were interested in the encyclopedia, you would attempt to determine a little bit of the background before plonking ham-fisted templates on the talk pages of productive editors. If, after investigating the background, it was felt that some kind of warning was warranted, an admin wanting to help the encyclopedia would write a few words explaining their concern, and would omit the melodramatics which should be reserved for genuine wars. Please resign. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS warnings
While I did not receive one due to Cailil's comments, I am concerned by these other warnings due to some of the mistaken comments an experienced AE admin such as yourself is making with regards to acceptable practice at AE. Some points I consider relevant: Overall, I feel handing out all these warnings for comments at AE that were hardly beyond the pale for a conduct noticeboard is needlessly disruptive, especially when the noticeboard discussion was initiated for apparently vexatious and POINTy reasons.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments about Apteva's conduct with regards to the MOS pages and article titles were clearly pertinent to a case Apteva filed against an editor from that same topic area who is on the other side of the dispute.
 * Comments about Sarek's conduct were obviously pertinent to the case as Noetica's comments were made in the context of a disagreement with Sarek.
 * While the claim that SMc did not provide evidence for his allegations in the AE case is accurate, Confucius provided links to various discussions that concerned Apteva's conduct with regards to the MOS and article titles in a rather civil nature yet was still given a warning.
 * AE admins are not required to examine the claim of the filer and only the claim of the filer. I noted plainly that the instructions at AE are that editors who come with unclean hands may have their request denied or be sanctioned. Clearly that means it is well within bounds to comment on the conduct of any involved parties when a complaint is raised, as is common at any and every other conduct noticeboard.
 * Sorry, but I still disagree. Even considering that it is true that Apteva has been found to have acted disruptively, based on the community topic ban imposed against them on AN at (just noting, that's how you cite evidence when discussing user conduct), this does not justify other editors showing up at an AE request made by Apteva and discussing that misconduct, and especially not alleged misconduct by others. That's because AE is focused on arbitration enforcement. While it is true that at AE a filer's conduct can be examined also, in view of AE's special purpose this "unclean hands" examination must be limited to misconduct that could result in AE action against the filer, rather than to their conduct in general. But in the instant case no such action was possible because the filer, Apteva, had only just been warned, and in fact nobody of the users I warned asked for AE sanctions against Apteva, but only generally voiced their disapproval of Apteva and other editors. This, as I said, is beyond AE's scope.  Now normally such offtopic (at AE) comments might just have been ignored, but in this case the ArbCom decision contains a special anti-battlegrounding reminder. That is why it was appropriate to warn the users at issue of that reminder. It is important to recognize that this reminder also applies when dealing with misconduct by others, as in this case by Apteva.   Sandstein   08:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * However, considering the volume of criticism received so far, I've decided to ask for the Committee's advice at their talk page.  Sandstein   09:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was pertinent to raise Apteva's general abusive, forum-shopping modus operandi at AE, because Apteva was abusing AE and using it for forum shopping!  There is no policy that mentioning what is already common knowledge in admin noticeboard circles (Apteva's case at AN had been going on for weeks, and it was not his first time at AN/ANI or AE for related abuses) requires that citations to evidence be produced once again on the spot simply because the discussion has moved around a bit, e.g. from RFC/U to AN to AE; it is generally presumed that WP editors and admins are not morons, can read, and are sane enough to understand that a contentious issue appearing at AE probably has some background history worth looking, and will actually go look for it and familiarize themselves with it before coming to hasty conclusions about one party's newly AE-posted version of events.  It was  to mention the two other tag-team editors also involved in the AN case, because to not do so would be to falsely accuse Apteva of causing all of the salient problems being referred to, when in fact he was only 1/3 of the problem. (False accusations are not in my toolkit; the same can't be said for someone else central to this conversation...) Myself and others suggesting that Apteva's vindictive request for arbitration was POINTy, vexatious and/or frivolous (I think my own term was "farcical") obviously qualifies as a request that Apteva be sanctioned for filing such a request, since such sanctions are normal in response to such nuisance filings.  If you don't know this, why you clerking (or lurking or whatever it is you are doing) at AE?  I and others threatened by you were  "generally voic[ing] [our] disapproval of Apteva and other editors"; we were providing information to AE that the motivation for Apteva's request there was extremely suspect, because there was already overwhelming consensus at RFC/U and AN that he had been a consistently disruptive editor on topics related to the matter, and refused to accept this, instead re-re-re-re-re-re-raising his peeves at every possible forum; we would have been negligent to  make AE aware of this. The RFC/U, AN and AE proceedings involving Apteva do  intrinsically have anything to do with style or titles at all, and not everything said in them is magically subject to WP:ARBATC.  All three of them were about, entirely independent of whatever the article or guideline topics Apteva was being disruptive over originally, be that RfA procedures, Mickey Mouse, or turnips. Even if you were right (which you are not) that I and others were making broad-stroke, vague and off-topic allegations without proof, and even if you were not patently assuming band faith on our part by accusing us of doing so, your ARBATC-based warning is invalid, because ARBATC was  to anything said in the messages we posted for which you issued these bogus warnings. If you felt compelled to smack me and the other three editors who got your warning, you should have simply left your personal admonition as an admin, that we henceforth ensure that issues brought up about editors at AE are directly relevant to the AE request at issue and that evidentiary links be provided in situ. No one would resign over this, and you would not be making any false accusations or assumptions, simply issuing a request for mindfulness.  I.e., doing something a reasonable, fair-minded, thoughtful admin would do. Your knee-jerk, no-homework assumption that we must necessarily have been acting inappropriately, and that there could be no other possible interpretation, when you clearly had zero background information or context, was a mistake. So was citing ARBATC as the basis for the warning without actually walking through the logic to see if you were responding to a disagreement about style/titles and thus subject to ARBATC or a disagreement about an editor's abusive behavior patterns generally, which has jack to do with ARBATC (please note that Apteva was eventually blocked for sockpuppetry in energy/power articles, and nothing to do with style or article names at all!).  Your assertion that ARBATC's "special anti-battlegrounding reminder" as you put it (and you have failed to demonstrate that I or anyone else violated WP:BATTLEGROUND) applies to general noticeboard activity "dealing with misconduct by others" is patently false, and unsupported by any statement ArbCom has issued; like all ArbCom sancitons, this one is very narrowly tailored to the specific of the ARBATC case, which covered long-term editwarring and incivility over naming conventions and the Manual of Style.  Another mistake was assuming you had a consensus at AE to issue a warning in the name of AE and the ArbCom when in fact no one else supported your doing so other than one other admin (possibly not uninvolved, like you), who did not provide any actual rationale for doing so, and who did not indicate having looked into the background and context of the issue either (if neither of you did any homework, you're equally likely to be wrong).
 * I will certainly be warning every editor of the dangers of writing anything at the AE page. It's just not worth the risk. Tony   (talk)  11:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a bad idea to warn editors to be circumspect when critizing others, whether at AE or elsewhere, but particularly in the context of arbitration enforcement requests regarding topics with active discretionary sanctions. Also, there's normally no need for involved editors other than the filer or the subject of the request to make any contributions to an AE thread. In that sense, such a warning would be a good idea.  Sandstein   08:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your warnings to these editors indicate that they "casted aspersions". (Unless I'm misreading it?) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision (is this the section you were referring to?) — key here—and you mentioned this too at AE—is that the allegations were unsubstantiated. But I don't see that at all at AE; plenty of links/diffs etc were given to back up the allegations being made. In particular, I'm reading over Ohconfucius' comments at AE, trying to figure out what exactly the warning is about. I don't see it. I've looked on with dismay at the nonconstructive bickering that has been going on at these pages for the last few years, but I don't see it there at the AE discussion. As far as I can tell, simply arguing that the enforcement request was made in retaliation for something was enough to earn a warning? Was that your intention? I haven't been terribly active at AE in the past, and honestly I'm kind of afraid to comment there now! I think you at least need to retract the language about casting aspersions. If nothing else, plenty of evidence was given at AE for every claim made, as far as I can tell. HaugenErik (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've explained the reason for my warnings in more detail elsewhere. In general, they relate to the need not to continue (underlying) content or conduct disputes at AE, which is not the place for this (the box there reads: "Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not for: ... Conduct not covered by the ruling"), and not to continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, in accordance with the Committee's reminder.  Sandstein   08:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking here specifically of the "cast aspersions" language you added, which appears to be irrelevant, given the lack of unsubstantiated allegations, which is key. I think you at least need to retract that. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you



 * Thanks - I appreciate it!  Sandstein   08:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for JAMWiki
An editor has asked for a deletion review of JAMWiki. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Audriusa (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ping
Hi, Sandstein. Did you notice I wrote a hopefully constructive comment aimed at you, well, not you exclusively, but you should see it at the RFAR talkpage? Bishonen &#124; talk 16:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

Edit warring at WP:MOSCAPS
Based on the recent history at Manual of Style/Capital letters‎, do you think there could be an argument for a 1RR/week restriction there? Sarek and SMcCandlish have been reverting back and forth. We could just let the problem drift back to ANI, I suppose. It is hard to know whether this is just a normal day in the life of the MOS, or if it's unusual. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not aware of the background as regards that page and whether this is normal, but the recent history looks problematic. In general, where a problem is associated with specific editors, I prefer to aim restrictions at them rather than at a page generally. I don't know whether SarekOfVulcan has already been warned about the ARBATC case, or else he may need to be, but SMcCandlish was recently warned by me and so may be restricted. I see that you linked to a similarly disconcerting recent MOS edit by him where he insisted that the MOS "MUST" something or other. All-caps arguments are seldom a good sign. Maybe this would benefit from discussion at AE or you could act directly? Sorry, I can't contribute much until the weekend, as I have only intermittent net access.  Sandstein   22:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, you're both involved in a dispute with me at WT:AE, in which I allege that both of you are inappropriately personalizing against me whatever you can think of that has anything to do with MOS or AT, including with demonstrably false accusations (i.e., a case can be made that are both actually violating the provisions of WP:ARBATC, for whatever reasons), so neither of you are in a position to be recommending sanctions against me on anything relating to that topic, broadly construed, without it being an obvious conflict of interest.  I would suggest you ask for the input some other admin, who neither has a history of disputes with me nor a history of involvement in style arguments, e.g. User:Fughettaboutit. Second, there is no editwar or revert war at MOS:CAPS.  I WP:BOLDly made an admittedly complicated edit that I thought was self-explanatory, but which evidently wasn't. SarekOfVulcan reverted per WP:BRD, disagreeing with or not understanding some of it.  I re-edited the page one bit at a time with rationales for every change I restored (as originally made or in modified form, and not including all of my original proposed changes - SofV did make it semi-clear what some of his objections were). I also including a few other new tweaks. This was a series of edits similar to my original one, but not simply a counter-revert.  SofV (and everyone else who watches the page) accepted all of these changes except one. I approached that remaining issue with a dispute tag, which properly links to where the dispute is in Wikipedia_talk, in place of the textual explanation that SofV objected to as an "editorial", and this dispute tag has since been supported by at least one other watcher of the page.  That's not an editwar, it's business as usual, and it's already ; proposing sanctions against me or SarekOfVulcan or 1RR restrictions at the page level now is just swinging a hammer around when there's no longer any nail that needs to be driven in. I make a tool-use analogy on purpose here, BTW.  Thirdly, edit summaries do not have text formatting like boldface, italics or any other form of emphasis, other than *starring* or ALLCAPS (and except in Usenet, most people prefer the latter).  Lambasting me for using emphasis is absurd. I also have to repeat my observation at WT:AE that you appear to be assuming bad faith, especially when you surmise that my using emphasis in an edit summary is "problematic", "disconcerting" and presumptively "not a good sign".  As for why I emphasized: MOS:CAPS does in fact, as a plain and demonstrable matter of WP:POLICY,  follow WP:MOS, both because MOS's own wording makes it clear that it supersedes its subpages, and more importantly (as the MOS wording just mentioned could be removed, but the next fact would not be affected) because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy does not permit insular groups of editors like wikiprojects, or dominators of disused guideline subpages' talk pages, to make up and enforce their own pseudo-guidelines against site-wide consensus, such as major guidelines.  LOCALCONSENSUS was written in response to a series of WP:ARBCOM decisions the entire point of which were reining in off-the-rails wikiprojects and tagteams that refused to accept that consensus was against them on minor, obsessive points and grew to be disruptive as a result. This is precisely the case with the people who keep trying to modify the MOS:CAPS (and NC:FAUNA, etc.) wording to support their anti-MOS views after already failing to gain consensus at WT:MOS last year (even with canvassing and disruption of an RfC poll that wasn't going their way).  I have to agree with the commentator on my talk page that you're basically talking about sanctioning me for using capital letters. It's clear that, as you admit above, you don't actually know the background. So please stop getting involved unless and until you do, and stop labeling my edits a "problematic disconcerting bad sign" when you don't even understand what they are yet and what policies they relate to.  There's a term for following an editor around from page to page and criticizing everything they do. It's nothing something the community tolerates, especially from admins. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  15:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself involved in a dispute with you in a way that would preclude me from taking administrative action with respect to you. I've issued you an administrative warning, and you've complained about it. That does not constitute involvement, as WP:INVOLVED explains: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." As to your other statements, I've taken note of them.  Sandstein   16:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD 2
Since the relist, the article has been plagued with canvassing as I expected when I first listed the AfD. Virtually all active Serb editors have !kept the article. Some are openly canvassing(Nado158) and others have resorted to sockpuppetry(SPI). That being said, users like Nado158 are showing extreme intellectual dishonesty. He's adding events that haven't been attributed to anyone and have no clear motives but he apparently groups them under "persecution". An example, which I removed was a case of two children injured in a bomb attack, which he added in the "list of persecutions". At that time there was no suspect and no motive and as the case developed that day (therefore Nado shouldn't had added it in the first place), while Nado was still editing ...a Serb from a neighbouring family was arrested as a suspect and of course Nado somehow "failed to notice" its crucial point and later even reverted me with what I can only perceive as a very disingenuous reasoning (I've even linked the article in my summary). And now this. Please intervene as this is getting too disruptive in all aspects.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything requiring immediate action, please wait for the AFD to close. I find it very troublesome that you qualify other editors by nationality. But the last edit you cite may also need attention. I can't do this until later though.  Sandstein   22:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Having gone through many such discussions, I can certainly say that common traits and editing history of editors are (unfortunately) vital statistics in understanding the outcomes. It's not an emotional or ideological observation on my part, but simply a statistical and relevant one. Yes, each argument should be judged on its own merit but when in X number of debates related to Y topic the same argument often with dramatic overtones (see Nado's "keep" argument for example) and irrational components in some cases is repeated by about the same Z group of editors with a similar editing history, there is a statistical output that has to do with common characteristics of the editors. Why do these editors enter similar and often the same debates and always have the same opinions and arguments? In this case it's most likely nation-based ideology, while in other cases the relevant trait can be religious beliefs. Of the 5 keep since the relist, 4 have come from Serb editors (one now blocked as a sock), while of the pre-relist 2/4 came from Serb editors, thus in total 6/8 (75%). Since the relist there have been 2 rename/merge and 3 delete, of which 1 definitely comes from an Albanian editor. When I listed the article I specifically mentioned this series of events that I was certain that would happen. Sorry for the long post, but it's important to me that you understand that I'm not making some simplistic "Of course he says that, he's an X" argument.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All i can see is ethnic profiling, as all those years ago, and after all those warnings. Not to mention that active editors can see nomination from Article alerts, while some of "delete" !votes came after less then minor activity, just to vote. + SPA, on the other side. This looks like BOOMERANG. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 09:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which are the "some delete votes"? There's only one somewhat new user who has opted for deletion and he hasn't even been involved in any SPI. And what exactly looks like boomerang(I haven't reported anyone)? Btw I'm hardly the first to notice and mention these incidents, which WW labels as "ethnic profiling". On a move discussion of a similar topic, canvassing and meatpuppetry was again mentioned in relation to similar groups editors (including WW ). In fact, a particular Serbian editor reappeared in this late 2012 RM after having last edited in 2007. Well, I will wait until the AfD ends and then I'll ask for all these incidents to be evaluated. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets try again. You should not label editors per nationality, whatever your reason is to do so. Also, this is painful misrepresentation of traveling circus buddy campaign to remove what IDONTLIKE. Sure, we have a chaos of editing in this area, but attack is the best defense. Try maybe to improve articles, instead of agenda editing. Maybe talk page, instead AfD? Please, Sand, read comments with restraint. Balkan apiary. I will not disturb you anymore here, Sand, all best. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Romi Mankin
Dear Sandstein, I have made a little new page on Romi Mankin as I think he is more notable now then when the page was deleted thanks to the increase in h-scores and this coupled with the EPS prize should be enough. Hope this is OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Hi. Sorry, but I've deleted the page because it was identical (or nearly so) to the article that was deleted. Please don't recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation. If you want to make sure, submit an userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV.  Sandstein   16:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Sandstein, what do you think of the new h-score? (Msrasnw (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC))
 * No idea what that is. H-score appears to be some obscure financial metric whose article may need deletion. (now redirected to h-index, which I assume you meant). In general, only coverage in reliable sources conveys notability, not some metric, see WP:GNG. At any rate, what matters is that a recreation of a deleted article must be substantially different from the deleted one in such a way that the concerns voiced in the deletion discussion are addressed; this doesn't apply to your identical or near-identical recreation.  Sandstein   16:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear I thought you might understand h-indices and their use in helping judge acdemic notability. Anyway my argument was, on the new article's talk page which you also speedily deleted, that the substantial increase in his h-index indicated that he would now meet WP:prof more clearly and that some of the concerns in the old Afd with low GS Scholar cites had now been met. The use of the H-score/h-index for use in establishing notability of academics like Mankin is discussed in Prof. Was this unclear in the recreated articles talk page? Perhaps I should try again with a more substantially different article discussing his work rather than doing all the work need in DRV.  Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Well... the recreated article or the talk page do not even mention (let alone source) what his h-index is now, and that guideline you cite states: "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used". So, no, the article would need a substantial improvement and a convincing showing of notability based on relevant new coverage in reliable sources (rather than some index number) before it can be restored.  Sandstein   22:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was following the line taken here:Guide_to_deletion
 * If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.
 * I thought since I had mentioned my view about the increased notability due to more citations and the higher h-score in a note to you and in the recreated articles talk page and my request there that it not simply be speedied then I would get another Afd if you felt it needed. I think the use of cittion metrics in deletion debates is normal but including them in the article itself not.
 * Anyway I can see you have power in this situation and may well have been within your rights, if not what I think the spirit of wikipedia is, then I will leave this for the moment. I am disappointed in your response to this and think this is a notable Estonian physicist - the prize to my mind makes this clear. Best wishes in anycase (Msrasnw (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC))

a minnow and an answer
This Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is/was stupid. Have a minnow. The answer is: The purpose of a DS warning is to ensure the editor is aware of DS and therefore can be pretty much be placed by any admin at any time. It doesn't require any violation of the ArbCom sanction, so arguments that such a warning is "invalid" is bogus and should be ignored. See Other Duck. If you choose to do the Dispute Resolution thing -- and you've picked a doozy by doing the AE thing -- you're gonna to get blowback; it's best for Wikipedia to shrug it off. If anyone really things your warning ain't legit, let them try to get an answer out of ArbCom. NE Ent 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I think the cases raises real questions about AE appellate procedure, which is why I've opened a clarification request.  Sandstein   21:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for input. Did I screw up?
Thanks for your reply to what I thought was a request for appeal. Did I file in the wrong place? If so, can you please direct me to the right place. Paavo273 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm... actually not certain how and where and which arbitration enforcement actions can be appealed, hence my reference to my own clarification request about precisely that question :-) I think arbitrators will address your request where it is, if only to decline it, but you should really read WP:GRA and format your request in such a way that others have any chance of (or interest in!) understanding what is going on, e.g. by adding links and diffs, and by being as brief as possible.  Sandstein   22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of a valued long-time editor
Dear Sandstein, if I hadn't said enough about this, I'll reiterate my distress at the loss of Noetica, whom I hold you responsible for hounding out of en.WP. Noetica appears to have requested the deletion of his userpage, which was done today by Matt Bisantz. I just don't understand why you feel it's necessary to punish editors by imposing these discretionary sanctions on them for no clear reason.

It is belittling to be treated like a naughty child when you're an established and highly talented editor who has put a huge investment into the project. Without even talking about the technical injustice, I'm wondering whether you understand the psychological impact of your actions: it appears not. Do you feel it's just fine to jettison our best editors with ham-fisted knock-their-heads-together actions when editor retention is the most serious problem facing us? Anyone could have predicted that that would be the effect. And you've infuriated other editors who were caught on the sidelines just commenting at the AE. It would be understandable if they gave up their efforts as volunteers, too.

On-wiki comments and emails are telling me that there's significant discontent about what has happened. Perhaps you might consider righting the wrong by apologising and withdrawing this weird and unjust imposition of discretionary sanctions, which gives any admin extra guns to shoot down established editors at their whim. That would restore the respect I believe you deserve for your expertise in certain areas, and frankly, you'd come out looking good, establishing that admins actions can and should be subject to reflection and occasionally self-reversal.

As a personal comment, this turn of events is just the kind of thing that fuels sharp resentment of admins by non-admins. I feel a cudgel; this will not be easily forgotten or forgiven. Tony  (talk)  12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your frank and honest comments. However, I don't agree with them.
 * To begin with, a warning is not a sanction, because it imposes no restrictions. It simply reminds people to take particular care when editing in a sensitive area, which (in the ArbCom's judgment) includes WP:MOS. As one can see e.g. at WP:ARBPIA (concerning the Israel-Palestine topic alone), such warnings are routinely issued to dozens or hundreds of editors, including to such well-experienced editors as, and . I am therefore astonished to see that some of the four editors I warned in this case have become so angry about it. I've never experienced anything remotely similar from the many other editors I've given such warnings.
 * While I share your concern that we need to retain qualified contributors, an absolutely non-negotiable condition of participation is compliance with our community conduct rules. These apply to all alike, newbies and oldtimers, good and bad editors, administrators and other editors. Therefore I as much as possible try not to take an editor's experience, admin status or other characteristics into account when assessing the conduct of others. I am actively opposed to a certain social dynamic in Wikipedia that tends to give well-established editors (who are often, but not always admins) more leeway for disruptive conduct.
 * For these reasons, if somebody retires simply because they were warned that they need to comply with community conduct rules, I can't help but consider that this is probably because they were in fact violating these rules (or were counting on being able to do so in the future), and that such retirements are therefore likely a net benefit to the project in the long run. Additionally, the essay WP:DIVA describes my general attitude towards editors who retire, or threaten to, because they feel offended.
 * I don't see why these warnings should fuel particular resentment of admins by non-admins, either. It is in the nature of things that admins are the ones who issue such warnings. However, admins may be warned or sanctioned too, and I at least try to treat them exactly like all other editors in that regard.
 * I also disagree with your characterization of my warning as "hounding", which per WP:HOUNDING is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I've interacted with Noetica exactly once, in my recollection, and that was in issuing the warning. Therefore I find this comment of yours perplexing.  Sandstein   15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep saying things like this: I can't help but consider that this is probably because they were in fact violating these rules. I urge you to accept the quite real possibility that people don't like feeling like they're being punished, especially when they don't think they've done anything wrong. Can't you see that some might not like to participate in such an environment? That doesn't mean you have to agree that they haven't done anything wrong. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly most people don't like feeling like they're being punished. But in this case, I'd have difficulty taking them seriously, because a warning isn't a punishment, just like traffic warning signs by the roadside are not a punishment.  Sandstein   21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But the point is that they feel like it is a punishment, or at least an official determination that they have been naughty. See the commentary at the A/R/CL—even some of the arbitrators have said things like "the implication is that some form of misconduct has taken place". Read the text of the warning you left! Being told this, when you don't believe you have done anything wrong, is not conducive to making this a fun and rewarding place to spend your time. Can you see that this might be the case for some people? That leaving does not necessarily imply that they know they are guilty? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 09:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I fully understand that many people who are sanctioned or warned on Wikipedia believe that they have been treated unjustly, and there are some who are so frustrated about it that they leave. However, that's in no way a reason not to sanction or warn them if they do something that merits it. That's because my primary concern as an administrator are the majority of productive editors who do not misbehave in any way, and many of whom may disengage from the project as a result of encounters with the minority of editors who have trouble functioning well in a collaborative environment. What we can perhaps do better is to communicate to the editors who believe they've been treated unjustly that, like all human decisions, sanctions can be a result of good faith misunderstandings, errors or misconceptions on either or both parts, and that it's better to use the formal appeals procedures rather than storm off like a WP:DIVA.  Sandstein   18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * that's in no way a reason not to sanction—No of course not, I don't think anyone said it was. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure
I've made a request for closure at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure regarding Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes. The consensus seems pretty straightforward (!vote 5 supports to 2 opposes) other than the usual walls of text from the usual source. I've also informed User:EdJohnston and hopefully we can start making some progress on the article. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Brandmeister
Hi. While the report on Brandmeister was closed, I believe the information that I provided on violation of the parole by User:517design apparently went unnoticed: Could you please advise if this information is actionable, or if what 517design did appearing out of nowhere and reverting without any discussion was not a violation of his parole? Thanks. Grand master  11:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * may well be a violation of . If you think that this is so (and I've not examined this in detail), then you can file a corresponding request at WP:AE.  Sandstein   12:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your two diffs appear to be identical. Do you mean that this: could be a violation of this:  It clearly is, I'm just not sure whether filing another report could lead to sanctions against me in the view of the recent warning. In any case, the information has already been provided at AE, do you think I need to file another report?  Grand  master  12:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. No, making actionable reports is not a problem, and misconduct by each individual editor should be the subject of a separate AE request, to allow focused discussion.  Sandstein   12:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I filed an new report at AE. Grand  master  12:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedures relating to Discretionary Sanctions
Hi. I've compiled a list of links to documents and procedures that materially affect the D.S. system. Can you think of any procedures or other important rulings that are missing from that list? I suspect it will be necessary to amend several procedures in an omnibus motion, so I'd like to make sure we get it right at the first pass. Thanks, AGK  [•] 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the initiative to do this. I'll take the liberty to add relevant pages to your list.  Sandstein   08:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Falsification of history in Azerbaijan
Hello dear Sandstein, yesterday User:Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the Falsification of history in Azerbaijan article, without even nominating it for deletion. Here he claims that "The article was obviously a tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content, and, as WP:CSD describes, a page intentend solely to disparage its subject. It was also created by an account who is almost certainly a sockpuppet."

This is simple unacceptable. As long as I know, Wikipedia is a community and admins don't have the right to delete articles without even a little discussion. The article was mostly translated from the Russian Wikipedia and the article there was created in 2008 and as you can see it still exists. -- Ե րևանցի talk  15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied in the AN thread you opened.  Sandstein   18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your, in my view, inappropriate speedy deletion of Romi Mankin (again)
Dear Sandstein, I have taken some time to think about your speedy deletion of my recreation of the Romi Makin page and can't help myself from feeling troubled about your approach here. My argument for recreation was specifically addressed on a note to you and on the talk page for the new article and specifically was addressing the main reason for the initial suggestion for deletion of the first article - his low notability due to a low h-index in GS. Others arguing for deletion also argued "GS cites are low". I argued in the notes to you and and the talk page that this no longer in my view true. I think you did not take this into account when deleting. Did you check the h-index in GS before deletion. I also found your threat not to "recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation" was rude and not appropriate for an administrator. I am also not clear about whether your suggestion of submitting a "userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV" is appropriate. I felt by my mentioning of the improved h-score to you and in the talk page of the recreated article I had overcome the objections, and showed that my new, improved work met Wikipedia article policies. I wrote down the reasons I thought the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. I am particulerly concerned that it seems to me that any attempt to remove it again should have been settled before the community, on AFD. Are you completey convinced you have behaved properly in this matter and what suggestions do you have for further action on my part? I am not sure why a restoration and another Afd would not be more appropiate according to our policy. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
 * A quick glance at the article(s) shows the speedy deletion to be appropriate. You really should not have recreated a live article, but should have kept it as a userspace draft until it had been reviewed.  There's nothing in Sandstein's wording that was inappropriate: if you recreate it, it will be salted...pretty simple and to the point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See also User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/February and Articles for deletion/Romi Mankin
 * Dear BWilkins thank you for your response to the note I left for Sandstein. I am not clear how you think this note might help since I don't think it engaged with the issues raised only offered your support for the outcome. Also I am not clear which policy your argument that I should not have recreated the live article was based on. My feeling is userspace drafts is something some would like to encourage but has this been accpeted as policy now? Also I think your strengthening of the "threat" is not in policy. Sandstein suggested
 * "Please don't recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation. If you want to make sure, submit an userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV." (This dosn't seem the right use of WP:DRV)
 * you suggest
 * "if you recreate it, it will be salted". Is this whatever form the recreation takes no matter if the reason for deletion no longer apply and the article has been improved?
 * I am clearly unhappy with your response and the lack of response of either you or Sandstein to the issues I raised rather the outcome we have at the moment. My opinion is that I think this has not been handled well and the same outcome could have been achieved with far better feeling if other language or another approach had been used. Even if another AFD was deemed by Sandstein too much why not engage with the issues raised - suggest I look for more sources - ask for details of the new H-score and expalin how that still might not meet the appropriate WP:prof level - or that more than that might be needed. Heavy handed behaviour be administrators is I think a problem that could easily be avoided and typically involves what could easily be viewed as conentious deletions. And this to delete a short stub on an Estonian Physics Prof who has been awarded the medal of his nation's national Physics Association and has a H-index with the range that often leads to keeps at Afds. Anyway I will not pursue this further for perhaps a year when I will look again at Romi Mankin and see if I can make a more substantial article. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Dear Sandstein, Can you userify the talk page (Talk:Romi Mankin) that you deleted with the article. I do not need the article itself as I have a copy but the talk page might be needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC))
 * There's nothing there except project tags, deletion stuff and this by you: "I believe a page is now more justifiable because of increase in his notability as measured by the increase h-score coupled with his having been awared the 2002 Estonian Physical Society's Annual Award for his contribution to the development of stochastical physics in the area of noise-induced phase transitions and transfer phenome."  Sandstein   21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Looking for feedback
Hi there,

I was discussing this proposal with User:Jclemens and he suggested your name as someone who I should show this to before I propose it to the community. I would appreciate your feedback at the talk page. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; I have replied at the talk page. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I have made some modifications and some new comments on the talk page. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I'm not gonna be a dick here, but all I did was try to recover a deleted article, which in my opinion, could have been used as a material for a nice article. I'm not saying it was perfect. I admit, I made a statement that wasn't quite appropriate, but banning me for a month just for complaining doesn't sound fair. -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you're not being a dick about it. But you were not "banned for complaining". Rather, you were topic-banned temporarily for pursuing real-world conflicts in Wikipedia, which is not the place for this – for instance, by trying to add quite pronouncedly non-neutral material, or by making statements about "Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists" or that "the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life". I understand that you have strong opinions about these issues. I might, too, if I had your background and experience. But you must set these opinions aside while you're here, or refrain from editing in this topic area. For example, I have quite pronounced opinions about various governments around the world, but I'm not airing these opinions on Wikipedia, because we are not a soapbox.  Sandstein   19:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, is it new to you that people have emotions and opinions? But it's a fact that my emotions and opinions do not reflect in my edits on articles. That what discussions are for. I also have my views stated out to the whole world on my userpage. Why don't you ban me for my views as well?
 * What would you call a scientist that falsifies history? Just because you're not familiar with the topic, doesn't make it any better. People who deny the Holocaust are no worse than people to falsify history.
 * "the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life". My this comment can be backed up my numerous sources.
 * For example, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance stated in their report on Azerbaijan:
 * And at last, see Ramil Safarov. He killed an Armenian soldier in 2004 during a NATO course in Hungary and in 2012 he was extradited to Azerbaijan and was greeted as a hero, including by President Heydar Aliyev. If you don't believe my words see BBC, Al Jazeera. Both wrote that he was greeted as a hero.
 * The very last thing. In 2012, Azeri President Aliyev stated "there are forces that don’t like us, our detractors. They can be divided into several groups. First, our main enemies are Armenians of the world and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control"
 * What would you call this? If you think that banning me for stating the truth is right, then you should also ban users for stating things like Holocaust was real, North Korea is a dictatorship, Soviet Union was a totalitarian country, al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, etc. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong about this. But I'm not saying you're right, either. I don't know and I don't care. I really don't. The point is that Wikipedia is not the place for making general statements about how wrong, evil etc. other people, governments, etc. are. Even if these statements are true, or we believe they are. This is because we are not a discussion forum and not a soapbox. So - you're welcome to your personal views, but please don't focus on voicing them here, because especially in this topic area, doing so will not help us write a better encyclopedia. Too, in this particular topic area, there are probably many from the other side who have similarly bad things to say about your country (whether rightly or wrongly). But we're not going to solve these real-world disagreements on Wikipedia. If we try, we only produce drama as angry people shout at each other. So - we don't. And when we write articles about hotly contested topics, we should try to write them in such a way that an outside observer would not be able to tell which (if any) side of a dispute we personally support. Only then can we be sure to be in compliance with WP:NPOV. And, frankly, your editing still leaves a lot to be desired in that regard. Now, please don't continue arguing in the vein of "but I am right to say that the Azerbaijanis did something bad", because (a) it's not going to convince me to undo the topic ban and (b) you risk violating the ban.  Sandstein   20:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good that you don't care. You must be neutral then. If that is the case why didn't you ban User:Grandmaster, too? His statement was "I can cite a million sources using the term "Armenian terrorism", yet we have no such article here, even though there's an article with that title in the Russian wikipedia, and you object to the use of the term in various articles describing attacks on Turkish diplomats. " How is this any better or worse than my statements? -- Ե րևանցի talk  20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not saying that I agree with Grandmaster, and I told him that this is not a discussion fit for an admin noticeboard - but what he wrote was related to how Wikipedia covers the topic, and did not contain any accusation of real-world wrongdoing, in contrast to your statements. He also did not (to my knowledge) try to add very obviously non-neutrally written, highly problematic articles to Wikipedia.  Sandstein   20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * please tell me you're kidding. you just said you don't care about the content, then how you know "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" is "very obviously non-neutrally written"? -- Ե րևանցի talk  21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't your job to treat everybody equally? You're saying that "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" is not neutral, but when user Divot says he has English-language academical sources, you say you don't care about the content. How should I understand this? -- Ե րևանցի talk  21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As this is now the subject of an AE appeal, all related discussion should continue there.  Sandstein   07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As this is now the subject of an AE appeal, all related discussion should continue there.  Sandstein   07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources about falsification
Hi Sandstein.

I am the author of this article "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" in the Russian Wikipedia, and I can provide all the sources for the article, including scans of books. You look their and tell me in which article to put these sources. To what address i can send you these sources? Divot (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am neither knowledgeable about nor interested in this topic, and I don't read any of the regional languages. I can't help you there. My interest in the issue is limited to helping suppress obviously problematic (nationalist, tendentious, disruptive etc.) conduct per WP:ARBAA, but I have no interest in the content.  Sandstein   20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean english academical sources. Divot (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Still not interested, sorry.  Sandstein   20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, please restore the article in my subpage, I'll try to add more sources and ask you about neutrality. Divot (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was watching this from the sidelines. The sources look neutral and it has the potential of being a good article. However, I believe the title of the article should be changed to something like "Historiography of Azerbaijan" or something similar and it should maintain a neutral tone. Sandstein, I appreciate your work and contributions. Especially with the recent E4024 ban. But in regards to this, I believe it would be really considerate of you if you restore the article in Divot's subpage as Divot mentioned and this discussion can move on from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What about restoring the article in my subpage. Divot (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to answer that. You'd need to ask the deleting admin about that. I'd like to defer to their judgment in that regard.  Sandstein   09:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, no one wants to do it and sends me to other administrators. Can I restore and edit the article in my subpage from cash? Then I'll ask some administrators to assess the neutrality of the article. Is this correct? Divot (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can certainly write a draft article in userspace and ask others to look at it, but if an administrators determines that it meets WP:CSD, it may again be deleted. If you engage in advocacy for or against any side of the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, on any page on Wikipedia, you may be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein   21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Divot (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Heterophobia


A tag has been placed on Heterophobia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. bobrayner (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this above notification would appear to be a quirk of Twinkle's annoying habit of notifying redirect creators instead of the users who turned the redirect into an article. However, if you, as closer of the previous of discussion, are interested, I've AfD'ed this article following Malik Shabazz's declining of Bobrayner's G4. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification
Please see my appeal -- Ե րևանցի talk  23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ohconfucius
As shown in the last 10 diffs in my AE comment, he is edit warring regarding MOS issues...while it isn't over date delinking issues, it is still about MOS edit warring which is pretty close the same issues he has been previously sanctioned and blocked for.--MONGO 05:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

E4024
Hey there. It's me again. You are the admin who recently handled User:E4024's case. If you remember, he was "indefinitely topic-banned with respect to everything related to Turkey, Greece and Armenia", but as you can see from his last edits, he continues to contribute to Turkey-related articles, such as Setenay Özbek, Bağlama, Erenköy Girls High School. Although his edits seem to be minor, I wanted to let you know. -- Ե րևանցի talk  03:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I've placed an enforcement block.  Sandstein   07:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Rogue address block request.
Hello. I know that this is a stale report because the vandalism incident last ocurred seven hours ago while I was away from my computer. But I'll say it anyway. Can you block ? This addressed was used today (and several days ago) by the Indonesian NBC/anime/movie studio/telenovela misinformation vandal. Children's programming on NBC and The Transformers: The Movie are two of the vandals "favorite" articles to butcher. Will wait for your action ASAP. Thanks! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by Graeme Bartlett.  Sandstein   10:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions question
Sandstein,

Does my situation detailed at [] fit your discussion about "Discretionary Sanctions" at [], or is this something elese? Crtew (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, I think the clarification request does concern your issue. As you can see from the request and the arbitrators' responses, it's currently not entirely clear who may issue what kind of warnings and how (if at all) they are subject to appeal. I hope that more answers will be forthcoming. My preliminary impression is that ArbCom opinion seems to be that all editors may issue neutral notifications, which are unappealable, but only admins may issue warnings that imply misconduct, and that these are possibly subject to appeal.  Sandstein   16:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A big concern of mine is that the template sounds already like a judgement: "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban." This is very harsh language to put in the hands of anyone. I'll study this discussion closely now. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Mild warnings of discretionary sanctions
Hello Sandstein. Are you familiar with uw-balkans? It is one of the templates in Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates. As you can see it has relatively mild wording. It goes out of its way to say that the person's behavior is not to be taken as inappropriate.

Can you imagine a standard warning of the same level of ferocity as uw-balkans becoming the first-level warning that anyone could issue? Then uw-sanctions would be the second-level warning that only uninvolved admins could issue. That warning would need to be attached to a statement of the behavior being complained about. Since User:AGK refactored uw-sanctions there is now a separate file Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Shortcuts that is transcluded by uw-sanctions. We could create a mild warning template that transcludes the same thing. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think that's a good idea. We could use uw-sanctions as a basis and tone its wording down. Though it may be better to wait on, who I think intends to propose motions to clarify the rules applying to such warnings and notifications. I'll ask him if he has any comment.  Sandstein   09:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, Sandstein. If you are interested in my view, I have responded on my talk page to Sandstein's question regarding the idea of a muted discretionary sanctions warning. AGK  [•] 22:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Palestine
When you histmerged the PNA article with the Palestine article (per this RM) you mangled two separate histories together. There was a period where both pages existed, see this for example.

Also you changed the lead to describe the PLO emblem as a coat of arms. It isn't, all CoA's are emblems, but not all emblems are CoA's.

Also, no one had objected to my "Palestinian emblems" counter-proposel. The current title definably more closely reflects the scope then the then the old one, but the current title doesn't reflect that the article also covers the PLO emblem, and not just the CoA. After I boldly reorganized the article on that basis no one (till you) had objected or reverted, so there was consensus for that edit. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not sure, do I need to do anything to fix the histories? As to the content, I don't really have an opinion; my edits were mainly concerned with fixing the mangled English.  Sandstein   11:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

E4024
It may be of interest to you that E4024 was soliciting people by e-mail to edit on his behalf. Athenean (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, this does not appear to be actually forbidden by the banning policy. But acting on such solicitations may be. See WP:PROXYING.  Sandstein   07:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Jülich
Hi Sandstein. When you closed the move discussion at Talk:Siege of Jülich, it looks like the Talk page got left behind in the move. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done now, thanks.  Sandstein   16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting it so promptly. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Konullu
You recently gave Konullu an arbitration enforcement warning here. Since then, he has restored the mess that is Justice for Khojaly. He wrote the article, of which a huge number of sources are facebook posts, youtube videos from random uploaders, petitions from non-notable groups, and even the comments section of a newspaper's website. Attempts have been made on the talk page to communicate to him what a reliable source is, but he seems to either have language issues or general competence issues. I thought since you seem more familiar with arb-related stuff, you might know what to do next (I personally try to avoid arbcom like the plague). Someguy1221 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This guy Konullu is one of the most unbridled POV-pushers I've ever come across. I filed an SPI investigation on him 12 days ago, but for whatever reason it hasn't started yet even though it's an obvious WP:DUCK. His agenda is quite blatant and he has a massive grudge against Armenians, e.g. his edits to Fraud, which were a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. More details available on request.  Also, he's just canvassed a blocked user (under ARBAA2) to help him meat puppet . --Folantin (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as I say in the edit notice: "Please do not ask me to take arbitration enforcement action on this talk page. Such requests will not be answered. For reasons of transparency and ease of processing, such requests should only be made at WP:AE." If you report the matter there with appropriate diffs as evidence, I'll take a look at it.  Sandstein   18:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Francesca Hogi
thank you for your closure of this AfD, but someone didn't like it (see this thread). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation

 * What is the basis for adding me to the warning list for the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case when I wasn't involved in this case, and I very seldom post on Article titles and capitalisation? I merely provided you with links to similar problematic behavior (threats and accusations) by SMC on other forums. LittleBen (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The basis is that your recent message to me reflected a confrontative attitude by you related to disputes concerning the manual of style, notably in that your message accused several other editors of serious misconduct without adequate evidence. This is not to say that there may not be misconduct worth looking into, but you must not make such accusations except in the proper dispute resolution venue, with diffs as evidence, and you must absolutely avoid using derogatory language (e.g., "obsessives who canvass a lot of cronies"). I wanted to make you aware that all pages related to the manual of style are subject to discretionary sanctions, which may be applied to you if you continue to pursue disagreements about the MOS in a similar manner.   Sandstein   13:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)