User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/May

UFO sightings in outer space
Hi,

Can you move User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space to the main space without leaving redirect? It is ready. I've added the categories to the bottom. Valoem  talk   contrib  02:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but is there a reason why you woudn't like to do it yourself?  Sandstein   04:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because i cannot do it without leaving a redirect unless there is a way I'm unfamiliar with. Valoem   talk   contrib  05:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Львівське
Львівське in article 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes has made 3 reverts within 24 hours:

| 1 revert | 2 revert | 3 revert

also |pure reverts in articles Luhansk People's Republic, Stepan Bandera, Donetsk People's Republic - 2 reverts, List of massacres in Ukraine, Sergey Aksyonov‎ - all reverts were done on May 5th yesterday.

Therefore, 8 reverts on May 5th, plus one revert on May 6th.

He recently appealed his WP:DIGWUREN 1RR sanctions.

RGloucester — ☎

Four reverts in cooperation with Львівське in article 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes on May 5th:

| 1 revert | 2 revert | 3 revert | 4 revert

One revert on May 6th | revert

Landcontrib (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is this single purpose new account that pops up to 'out' users editing on articles? A banned sock? --Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Landcontrib, you have 6 edits to Wikipedia. How do you know about WP:DIGWUREN and how did you know to go running to Sandstein for your block-shopping? Or for that matter, how is it you're familiar with all the admins who are active at WP:AE . See also WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said on the talk page of the article, everything I removed was either unsourced, redundant, POV, or incomprehensible due to poor English skills on the part of one of the other editors involved. I recognise that, with regard to the 3RR rule, I suppose I should've paid more attention. Sometimes, however, one must WP:IAR. As you might've noticed, I haven't reverted anything in a few hours, as I realised my error. Nothing I was doing was in 'co-operation' with Lvivske. I did everything of my own accord. If, upon reviewing my edits, the administrator in question believes I should be sanctioned, I will be happy to take whatever sentence I am given. My apologies if I offended you in some manner. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Landcontrib, please use WP:AE to make arbitration enforcement requests.  Sandstein  05:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After consideration, Landcontrib is indefinitely blocked because the account was apparently created only to evade scrutiny or sanctions.  Sandstein   05:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking to your Talk page/Discussion Page
I also observed that if anyone clicks on your user name, it does not lead to your Talk page/Discussion Page, so can you please do something, so that clicking on your user name leads to your Talk page/Discussion Page (or to both, your user page as well as your Talk page/Discussion Page - like it is for others). Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The link in my signature leads to my user page, from where my talk page is easily found.  Sandstein   15:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism related articles
Sir, you have topic banned me from the topic of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, but can I edit articles related to Terrorism in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan?—Khabboos (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sir (or madam), but can you please link to the sanction?  Sandstein   14:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the last section on my Talk Page.—Khabboos (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the terrorism that you want to write about occurred because of or in the context of religious or ethnic conflicts in or between India, Pakistan or Afghanistan - which I assume is very often the case - then, no, you may not write about it.  Sandstein   15:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What if it is within one of the countries (internally) and not between them?—Khabboos (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At the earliest, when can I appeal my topic ban?—Khabboos (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The ban also applies to internal conflicts. You may appeal it at any time.  Sandstein   16:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent blocking of "IP 76 etc"
Hi Sandstein. I just thought you should know that though your two week block against IP 76.107.171.90 may be within the rules as written, I believe it goes totally against the spirit of them, and you ought to reconsider. Just sayin' -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Against the spirit of which rules?  Sandstein   15:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend that you don't know what I mean. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't. Which rules do you think my block is in opposition to the spirit of?  Sandstein   15:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - when I said rules, I meant policies and guidelines, you know, those things that govern our interactions, behaviour and editing here. IP 76 does not deserve that block for a throwaway comment on a user talk page. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. They were engaging in personal attacks, which the policy WP:NPA forbids.  Sandstein   18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was coming here to say thank you, Sandstein, for being so even-handed. Articles dubbed to be "pseudoscience" seem to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND for many individuals who have adopted a skeptical point of view. My opinion is is that it is behavior that you should be judged by, not your point of view. Skeptical or sympathetic editors should be judged by the same standards of civility, collaboration, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. That is all I've been arguing for, but I, like many editors, have stayed away from editing pseudoscience articles because they seem so polarized, with an "us or them" mentality. I don't think just because an editor sees themselves as fighting against pseudoscience on Wikipedia, that doesn't give them a free pass to ridicule, badger or harass editors who have different opinions. Above all, pseudoscience discretionary sanctions apply to ALL editors, not just a few. I think that is how discretionary sanctions are intended to be used, based on editor behavior, not an editor's opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 15:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree.  Sandstein   15:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. Sandstein, you you also agree that "Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited," and that such behavior also falls under "editor behavior?" Just checking! Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In principle, yes, but the promotion needs to cross a certain threshold after which it stops being a content issue and becomes a conduct problem.  Sandstein   18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Origins of Nazi Eugenics
As per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Themes_in_Nazi_propaganda&oldid=607242101&diff=prev, I am guessing that you wish to have something in the way of a direct reference showing that, for instance, the Nazi's were the only ones to practice Eugenics, or, indeed, that they were the only ones to praise Eugenicist ideals. This is, as be BOTH KNOW, NOT the case. There are some who say that Eugenics has a long tradition within "White" communites (even before the time of the Nazis). I am reminded of the King of Prussia who is said to have BRED taller guards as part of his protectorate. Of course, I am no revisionist - but deliberate denial of the fact that the Nazi's felt they had to "catch-up" with Western Eugenicist programs IS ITSELF A FORM OF GROSS REVISIONISM. I will endeavour to find citations - but I fear that the Hawks on Wikipedia will try to bleach out the truth via excessively onerous citations requirements. I am not aware that I have any axe to grind with this, my only request is that you be open-minded and truthful (PS - WP is NOT about the Truth - it's official WP policy isn't it? But the truth does so happen to be verifiable) AnInformedDude (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course the Nazis were not the only ones to practice eugenics, but a page about Nazi propaganda in favor of eugenics is not the page to mention that. A lot of the things the Nazis were in favor of they were not the only ones to be excited about, but we can't mention this each and every time in the article, it' s distracting and might read like Nazi apologetics. Who practiced eugenics is a matter to be addressed in the eugenics article itself.  Sandstein   06:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United States
The editing doesn't appear to have improved since it was placed under discretionary sanctions. Would it be possible to keep an eye on it? I have put a reminder of the discretionary sanctions on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The way discretionary sanctions work is that if there is misconduct, someone requests admin action at WP:AE. You should make sure that all who are involved in disputes about the topic have been individually alerted with Ds/alert. I'm not personally interested enough in this topic to keep an eye on it myself, but I'll look at any cases that are brought to AE.  Sandstein   05:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

IBan
Hey,  Sandstein  , I have a question about interaction bans. Since you are the primary admin working at WP:ARE, I'm sure you are more familiar with enforcement of sanctions that most admins. So, how does an IBan work if both editors are already involved in an article talk page discussion? Must they both withdraw from the discussion? Or can they can to argue their case, as long as they don't refer to each other or each other's comments? In this instance, I'm referring to Barney and TheCap'n but this question must come up with every interaction ban since they usually involve two editors in a conflict within a specific topic area. Thanks for any explanation you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IBAN, "the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, [but] they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way." So, yes, if the editors are careful, they can continue to participate in talk page discussions.  Sandstein   22:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandstein, I appreciate your explanation. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
When you commented on the arbcom enforcement page, I looked to see if you were an admin. Not seeing the little sweep symbol at the top or the admin category at the bottom of your userpage, I assumed you weren't. Only an edit conflict stopped me from moving your comment into the user comment page. Please post the signals in the appropriate places for the lazy people like me who only scan through the userpage comments. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the category, thanks.  Sandstein   09:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Stone article.
While I stand by my !vote in the AFD, I do think Novalia itself probably does pass GNG based on that press link you mentioned. Although many of those are blogs, there are multiple mainstream UK RS hits, While WP:NOTINHERITED would still apply as to a standalone BLP, it would provide a place to discuss Stone in some manner as the founder and perhaps very brief bio. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can of course go ahead and create an article about the company, but the question of the founder's notability merits discussion independently, I think. Much more has been written about her, after all.  Sandstein   22:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Appeal by User:Carolmooredc
Please see WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request assistance
Where is the best place to report an editor who says there is sociopathic behaviour on WP. He has been notified of the sanctions. I'm currently in a dispute with him at chiropractic. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:AE, if you think of discretionary sanctions, else see WP:DR. But talking of sociopathic behavior generally without naming anybody is a weak case for sanctions.  Sandstein   22:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He is discussing me. He wrote Rather than individually deal with this individual, it might be better to work in conjunction to help prevent in what I see is sociopathic behaviour which ruins the experience of helping WP achieve its goal of being a reliable and credible source for medically related topics. The part "this individual" is referring to me. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't know for sure, do you? I put it to you that followimg others around on talk pages is not the best thing to do for one' peace of mind.  Sandstein   06:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor DVMt has continued his bad behaviour. The paragraph contains this specific sentence written by DVMt: I've tried in good faith with you here, but your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this . On the chiropractic talk page the link is to the page Profile of the Sociopath. He also accusing me of stalking and being a meatpuppet of Ersnt and having a COI. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said above, if you think that discretionary sanctions are required, WP:AE would be the place to report this. Otherwise, you should proceed per WP:DR.   Sandstein   09:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo
Just a heads-up, as you were the admin who closed the latest Republic of Kosovo/Kosovo (region) move swap. There's now what seems to be a consensus to go further ahead and merge the two pages back into each other, at Talk:Kosovo (region). Content-wise, I don't think this contradicts the intention of the previous move consensus as you closed it; I see it more as the second step following from it. However, technically speaking, it will probably necessitate a technical reversion of your moves, as the current Kosovo (region) has the full old history of the former unified Kosovo page (from before the article split), so that history should probably now be the basis for the newly merged page.

I was about to implement the merge but thought I'd give you a shout first. Would you be okay with me doing that technical move, or would you like to first see a formal closure of the merge proposal, or just close it yourself? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's what consensus is now (I haven't checked), then I have no objection. But I suppose that before executing any merger, the merger/move discussion should be closed first. i have no objection to you or another admin doing that.  Sandstein   08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I participated in the discussion. Would you care to close it yourself? It's not a huge discussion; shouldn't take long to evaluate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)re
 * I don't have the time for that at the moment, but you can ask for someone to do it at WP:ANRFC.  Sandstein   09:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hsiao-Lan Wang
This was a closely contested deletion in 2011, and the woman continues to gain attention as a composer. In light of Wikipedia's current need of articles on prominent women, I'd like to propose the article be undeleted. Pkeets (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there any new sources? See WP:RS, WP:GNG.  Sandstein   22:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see the article. I don't know what was there, so have no basis for comparison. It looks like she has been active during the interim. Pkeets (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User ban is not working
Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Marten Woudstra — Maile (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see how this might relate to me.  Sandstein   06:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Masha Allen
Just wanted to say that that was a solid, clear, and well-reasoned close (though it results in an outcome, for now, that I disagree with). Hobit (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Sandstein   06:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE
It is now clear that User:Floquenbeam told Carol by email that she could comment at AE in connection with Austrian Economics, though I don't know the exact wording of what he told her. Floquenbeam was one of the two drafting arbs, so she might have assumed she could rely on his advice. (Carol's two other notes on why she felt she could comment are not persuasive in my opinion. Beeblebrox just told her the case was not yet closed so AE was premature). If the block was undone that would not (IMHO) be a concession she was free to comment in the future. How would you feel about lifting your block provided that some kind of a warning was kept in the record? There has been a further discussion at User talk:Carolmooredc. I personally don't perceive a consensus to undo your sanction (if you continue to support it) though a different closing admin might do something else. It would not come as a complete surprise if someone made a filing at WP:ARCA in the future to see how the committee wanted these bans to be interpreted. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, Ed. To be clear: I didn't specifically say she could comment at an WP:AE thread started by someone else, but I told her she could report topic ban violations by other parties to the Austrian Econ ArbCom case at AE, and certainly didn't warn her that she could report them but not comment on reports already there.  I don't actually have much of a problem if we want to make a rule about commenting on other parties' reports - it may be a very good idea - but if it is unclear to me that this edit violated her topic ban, it is certainly reasonable that it might have been unclear to her as well.  I really encourage a lifting of the block, combined with a warning not to do that anymore, and if she wants to argue whether that's actually covered by the topic ban, she can go to WP:ARCA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, considering that Carolmooredc may have been given misleading advice about what she could do, I'm unblocking her and warning her that, according to the topic ban policy, she is forbidden to edit absolutely anything related to the topic she is banned from, including enforcement requests about others or alleged misconduct by others. The only exception is appealing or asking for clarification of her own topic ban.  Sandstein   21:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Justin Knapp
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Justin Knapp. 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. Valoem  talk   contrib  23:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to emphasize that I completely respect and understand your close. I am not questioning the rationale. However, this is a special example where WP:IAR is a legitimate reasoning given the inspiration this can achieve. To edit your way out of the backspace and into the mainspace is worthy of mention. On top of that he has receive coverage about his life and was a UN member. I hope you understand my made up policy WP:WEAREPEOPLETOO. :) Valoem   talk   contrib  04:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lifting the topic ban imposed on me
Dear Sir, 2 months have passed since I was topic banned (please see here for details: ) from certain topics. I now request you to lift the topic ban imposed on me, because, 1. 2 months have passed since I was topic banned and 2. I have always cited references for my edits ever since I posted anything on wikipedia since then. Thanks—Khabboos (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not a sir. Your request is declined because, firstly, you have not offered any persuasive reasons for why the sanction should be lifted. Sanctions are preventative, that is, they are intended to prevent the reoccurrence of past disruptive conduct. Neither of the reasons you give is an assurance that the conduct for which you were sanctioned will not reoccur. Your statement does not address the conduct for which you were sanctioned, and does not convince me that you even understand the reason for your sanction. Also, your request does not set out how you plan to avoid the conduct that led to the sanction in the future. Moreover, a glance at your contributions shows me that you have made no contributions of note to topics other than the ones you are banned from, and the few edits you did make are close to the banned topic area, in that they deal with religiously motivated violence concerning Muslims. This is worrying because it indicates that you may be here to pursue a particular point of view rather than to help create a neutral encyclopedia. This, too, is a reason for which I believe that lifting the sanction would not be in the interests of this project. — You remain free, however, to appeal the sanction to other community authorities, as described in the message informing you of the sanction.  Sandstein   16:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I do not know your gender (can I address you as Madam ?). OK, please tell me if someone will lift the topic ban imposed on me (since I have always cited references for my edits ever since I posted anything on wikipedia after my topic ban) if I appeal (if it is unlikely, I won't even appeal). Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind gender, "sir" comes across as inappropriately ingratiating to me, but that's not what matters. As regards the topic ban, I have nothing to add to what I said previously.  Sandstein   17:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oathkeeper
I think you for your edit on GoT Oathkeeper article. I didn't think it could be more concise, but you've proven me wrong. I have a bit of opinion, though. Can you leave the bit that says Podrick has to leave because Jaime doesn't want him involved in the trail? It is a consequence of an earlier event in the previous synopsis that shows Podrick's loyalty, and it is worth mentioning as a conclusion of Pod's storyline. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's obviously a matter of judgment, but I think that it does not need to be mentioned, because this motivation (as far as I can tell so far) it seems to have no impact on the plot and isn't much (if at all) commented on onscreen or by sources. If that changes, of course, we can put it back in.  Sandstein   15:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Academi
Hi, Sandstein. In December 2011 you movedthe Academi article to its current title. There is a ongoing RfC which is related to that move. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)