Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 5 April 2011

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Request for comment

Hi,

Could you please comment on this edit in the light of preceding discussion.

Thanks in advance, -- Ashot  17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think is the problem?  Sandstein  19:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor is well aware of existing arguments (among them Hewsen's work for disregarding of which he has got a notification from you), and however claims that "All these claims have no basis, have no evidence". Furthermore he accuses other editors of "playing game" simply based on the fact that he doesn't "know which way Mr.Ashot clearly sees that in some maps Kosalar is shown as a part of Armenia". Meanwhile maps themselves are self-evident if one knows the very basics of Geography. He tries to waste others' time to push his agenda. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. -- Ashot  20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you are wrong, but this does sound like a content dispute (that is, a disagreement about how an article should read). Administrators cannot resolve such disputes. You should proceed as described at WP:DR.  Sandstein  20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I probably have not succeeded in conveying my thoughts well enough. Actually my request for comment was not about the content, but about the disregarding of/ill-faith attitude towards others' arguments by an editor. Thanks. -- Ashot  20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there are WP:AGF problems, but not to such an extent that they warrant administrator action.  Sandstein  21:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,
Would like to bring this edit to your attention which was made after User:Verman1 had become aware of Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding preliminary discussion. The following is the opinion of User:MarshallBagramyan, which I share myself: "Even though one could say that the discussion on the Tsitsernvank is "ongoing", his edits on Gandzasar clearly constitute vandalism because they involve the removal of reliable sources, which plainly identify this monastery as Armenian, and highly contentious editing". Thanks, -- Ashot  17:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, but a content disagreement, and should not be called vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. Content disagreements must be resolved via WP:DR.  Sandstein  21:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and what about this edit during an ongoing discussion? Shouldn't this editor somehow be enforced to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines? -- Ashot  07:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You may know better how to qualify also this edit. -- Ashot  07:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Adam2 AfD

Hello. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adam2 as no consensus, citing the lack of discussion concerning the nature of provided sources. I am of the opinion that I acceptably scrutinized the applicability of the provided sources to satisfying WP:N and the reliability of the provided sources per WP:RS. My interpretation of AfD is that it is based on the merits of the arguments, not the quantity. Can you further elaborate as to why the lack of discussion is an issue? Regards, Rilak (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the AfD again. I overlooked that Markdask made a "Delete" recommendation after first giving a "Keep" opinion, presumably changing his mind. This changes my assessment. I've re-closed the discussion as "delete".  Sandstein  06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reassessing the AfD. I think I should point out that Markdask has left a comment on his talk page in response to a message from me which implies he prefers the article kept. That said, as you point out, he did say delete later on in the discussion. I suppose if Markdask considers deletion to be an unacceptable outcome, he can request a deletion review. Once again, thank you. Regards, Rilak (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hanterspade

This editor breached 1RR on Suez Crisis prior to being indef blocked. Am I permitted to undo his 1RR violation now that he's been blocked as a sock? Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:EW allows "reverting actions performed by banned users" but not (merely) blocked ones. If you do not want to take the risk of being blocked yourself, you should not revert the edit.  Sandstein  11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a violation of 1RR. Why shouldn't any user be permitted to revert it? Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because violations of 1RR are not part of the list at Misplaced Pages:EW#3RR exemptions, which applies by analogy to all revert restrictions.  Sandstein  11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for the explanation, but I think that's far from an ideal state of affairs, because it basically just rewards the violator. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Sandstein, you were the only one, who came up with a specific difference to justify banning me. What I said could have been a poorly formatted statement, but nothing else. Ones I added a quote from The Wall Street Journal'sarticle to the article I wrote. It was there for quite some time, but then somebody complained it was a "racist" quote. Immediately I removed it from the article. English is not my first language, and sometimes I am sloppy in my comments, but to topic ban me over that single maybe sloppy, but not a racist comment that I explained in a few places would be extremely unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not supporting a sanction on the basis of a single comment (your explanation for which, I think, makes little sense), but on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented in the request in combination with your record of disruption in this topic area.  Sandstein  21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You came up with a single specific difference. Others did not come up with any. May I please ask you to come up with some more differences to justify "totality of the evidence" of my disruptions in this particular topic area. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the evidence submitted by Passionless, although not all of it is problematic, does highlight multiple incidents of sanctionable disruption on your part; no additional detailed analysis by administrators is necessary.  Sandstein  21:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If an editor is going to be topic banned especially indefinitely this editor should know exactly what evidences are considered to be "sanctionable disruption" in the particular topic area. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your disagreement is noted.  Sandstein  21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I am surprised you did not archive the thread yet, or did not delete it at all :-) Sandstein, could you imagine a situation, in which a person is accused of, let's say robbery, and this person gets convicted because of "totality of the evidence" some of which are not about the robbery at all, the others of which prove nothing, and yet some others were explained and clarified, and with all of those "evidences" being presented by a person, whose greatest wish is to get rid of the accused, and whose own hands are not clean at all. It will be wrong to convict this person on such "totality of evidences", would it be not? And it is wrong to topic-ban me. Anyway. I see there's no use. Thanks for responding.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Archieved thread

"PANONIAN, you are posting messages to a thread at WP:AE that is already archived. Nobody is reading these messages, so I suggest you stop posting them. If you think that there is a dispute to resolve, please use the appropriate forum per WP:DR. Sandstein"

Oops, sorry. I did not know that thread is archived. I suppose that then I should open new thread about user Nmate. I mean, I do not know why this user is attacking me now because I did not had any recent disputes with him, but I certainly like to spend my free time in more creative way instead to defend myself from his accusations. I think that I own him this favor and that I should open new thread about him with evidences about his personal and ethnic insults addressed to other users. PANONIAN 06:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Miradre 2

Please address Mathsci, Maunus, aprock, AndyTheGrump and mine's concerns directly instead and have clear response to questions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already given my opinion. The sanctions apply to "closely related articles", which does not apply to the articles at issue in the request, even though the material that was added to these articles may be related to "race and intelligence". There are already too many people complaining that discretionary sanctions are applied too liberally, so I prefer to keep to the exact wording of the sanctions. If you think the sanctions are too restrictive, you need to ask ArbCom to expand them.  Sandstein  19:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Some times they need to be applied flexibly when situations come up like this where editors being in baggage from other topic area and insert them into articles like this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps sanctions would be appropriate here, but that is for the Arbitration Committee to decide, not for me. I am bound by the limitations set forth in their decision. But of course, another admin at AE may see matters differently and nonetheless take action.  Sandstein  19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You've made several fair statements here but I respectfully disagree on this case. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RA, even though I share your concerns about Miradre 100%, I think this is in fact something that is perhaps better handled in another venue, like AN/I, rather than AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)