Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:18, 3 February 2013

Italic text

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.

Your decision on Articles for deletion/Garadaghly Massacre (2nd nomination)

Hi, you have decided that a principal argument for deletion of the Garadaghly Massacre article was the national origin of the sources. Unfortunately your statement is not true and this was not the principal argument. The principal argument was, that the sources (no matter what national origin) used for the article are non-independent, governmental or pro-governmental sources and dead links. Thus the article's content severely fails the verifiability and neutral point of view policies. I therefore kindly ask you to revise your "result keep".--Markus2685 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these concerns were also voiced, but there was no consensus that the article should be deleted for these reasons. And assessing the reliability of sources is an editorial decision based on consensus. Accordingly, I can't change my conclusion.  Sandstein  12:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As you said, the result was "no consensus" and not "keep" (which you have declared as a result).--Markus2685 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the result was no consensus about the specific argument you mention, but a "keep" overall after discounting the weak other argument about the national origin of sources. At any rate, the outcome is the same.  Sandstein  13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the reliability of sources I would like to hint to this section on information about Azerbaijani news agencies. These facts have completely been ignored in the discussion. It is provably false to treat Azerbaijan as any other Western Country when it comes to "national origin of sources".--Markus2685 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Misunderstanding of the AE issues and consequent bogus warning

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. 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

Update: Please note that User:Neotarf has now resigned editing because of your unfounded threat/warning. 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⇒ ɖכþ 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)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. 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 the community has already agreed by consensus 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 pre-existed 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⇒ ɖכþ 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 threat 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 refuses 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⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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. . Moot point anyway, since no one else at the AE case supported your idea of throwing warnings around. Nd these are not really warnings, they are threats. 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 you going to work double-time to make up for the next eighty-thousand edits I was going to make over the next strong}}? 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.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ 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:

• 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.

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)

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)