User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:23, 21 January 2014 editTillman (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,591 edits →Banned User:IHaveAMastersDegree, anti-skeptic edits: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:39, 21 January 2014 edit undoSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,269 edits →Banned User:IHaveAMastersDegree, anti-skeptic edits: rNext edit →
Line 74:		Line 74:

	Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow. Bah. --] (]) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)		Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow. Bah. --] (]) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
			:Be aware that, as a matter of policy, ]. If you treat it as such, including rhetorically, you may be sanctioned yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:39, 21 January 2014

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.

Start a new talk topic

History of the Southern Levant

Sorry about the reversions. I've only just realised that the page no longer exists. I wouldn't agree that it should no longer exist. But I missed the debate so that's moot. However, the decision seems ton have been "merge", not "delete". Is this correct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, consensus was to merge wherever the content is most appropriate. I recommend removing the "main" link again, as it's now only a redirect back to the same article. Sandstein 22:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So if the decision was to merge, then where is the merged content? I can find none of it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in the article history, anybody can merge it from there to the extent this is helpful in the target article(s). Sandstein 05:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So where does the onus lie for giving effect to the final decision? Is it acceptable to just perform a partial job? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As is usually the case on Misplaced Pages, whoever wants anything done is invited to do it - in this case, merging the content from the history. Sandstein 21:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple ARBMAC violations

Wrong forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since you are one of the active admins in this field, I have to inform you that user:Slovenski Volk decided, some months now, to ignore his indefinite ARBMAC ban ] (and this wp:ae ]) and launched a full scale campaign editing and edit-warring into the ARBMAC field (hist last block due to edit war was in Scythians). This occurred as soon as he realized that user:Athenean, who sent him to wp:ae in the past, isn't active and therefore he saw this as a great opportunity to return. Right now he edits in all historical periods (classical, iron age, medieval, etc except from the modern era) and in all related ethnic groups (Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, (origin of) Albanians, Illyrians etc). For the record he is still allowed to edit only in Prehistory and Roman era Balkans per: ], but he decided to render the entire ARBMAC ban useless, pretending that his ban concerns only the modern Macedonia naming dispute, which by the way, was never one of his interests. Therefore, I believe that a precise definition of his area of restriction is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Alexikoua is manipulating and unfair, and is maliciously trying to incriminate me for personal reasons. I was placed on Arbmac restriction for edit warring in Ancient Macedonians, which I admit guilt to. Becuase I had one prior block in the Kosovo article and the Scythians (which actually have nothing to do with the Balkans but are from Iran and southern Russia), I was placed on ARBMAC ban. I have never edited article about modern history, wars , conflicts or anything political. My only interest has ever been in ancient history, to which i make substantive, high-quality, good-faithed and neutral edits to; with native-command of English and using the latest and best quality tertiary literature (something that other editors have never even heard of). I have stuck to the terms of my restrictions. I have not touched on amnything regarding ancient macedonians - broadly construed (including Alexander the Great, or the Verginia Sun, etc), nor anything relating to Yugoslavia and its conflicts, politicians, killings, Kosovo status etc etc (and never have). Admin Blade of the northern Lights sclarified to me " Anyways; ARBMAC is generally meant to cover the former countries of Yugoslavia (although in practice, I'd have no problem with you editing articles on Slovenia) as well as the naming dispute between the FYROM and the Greek province" but "The Neolithics and Roman Balkans aren't a problem" and "other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine". Alexikoua brings up the following article which she has problems with my deiting: Genetic history of the Turkish people. A wholly different people unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. Bulgars. An ancient Turkic people unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. Peloponessus - a Greek province unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. Quoting the Blade.. other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine Illyrians an ancient people which lived between the Bronze Age and ROman period; with no bearing in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. As above, her, Blade stipulated Neolithics and Roman Balkans are fair game". (with the implication of time periods in between) Archaeology of Roman & Medieval Epirus w.r.t Albanians. A separate nation -state with a wholly different people unrelated with no involvement in the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute, focussing solely on archaeology of northern Albania (Thus avoiding the risk of delving into any issue of Greek-Albanian territorial conflicts , etc which I do not even follow or have ever edited in). Cyrillic alphabet: an article on letters (!) used by almost half of Europe, with no bearing on ARBMAC. Scythians a wholly unrelated people who lived in Iran , southern Russia and Kazakhstan in 700 BC !, again with no bearing.... that I have other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine I really think that none of the above articles have anything to do with Arbmac. But see for yourself, and I shall abide by your clarification. Moreover, mark but my edits: . Surely any objective reader can see how academic, neutral and much-needed they are for Misplaced Pages ?! Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the ARBMAC concerns all Balkan related articles, broadly constructed, (Scythians settled also in the Balkans) not the naming dispute (a topic you were never interested) which is a small part of it. Unfortunately, you still avoid Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Area_of_conflict, since you are eager to return to the very same field you created disruption and have been several times blocked in the past (i.e. ancient & medieval Balkans).Alexikoua (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Yes a "part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans", not anything remotely to do with the Balkans. But the Scythians (which never settled the Balkans FYI), the Illyrians, the Turks, are not part of these interrelated set of problematic modern political issues (and many of them arent even from the Balkans!). And whilst I admit I had edit -warred in the past, I take offence at "you created disruption". My edits are nothing by fair, good-faithed and scholarly. Before casting aspersions, let me remind you of how certain editors (not mentioning any origins) tag-team to appear to reach "concensus' whilst actually holding every article hostage and driving away any well-meaning editor away. This is not fair Misplaced Pages approach. This was the only reason I was blocked from ARBMAC, becuase I eventually succumbed to the frustration of tag-teaming mass reverting of well-referenced material simply becuase you didnt like it. I blame myself for taking the bait, and not seeking other avenues which I am now area of, but these new blames are rediculous Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I admit you are the first user under ARBMAC, so far, who believes that Illyrians, Origin of the Albanians, Macedonians (ethnic group), Bulgarians, have nothing to do with this kind of ban (in fact they are part of the core of Balkan related articles). In case you believe your restriction was unfair, simply ignoring it isn't a sound approach. If you want to respect the community you need to appeal first.Alexikoua (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong forum.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since you are one of the active admins in this field, I have to inform you that user:Slovenski Volk decided, some months now, to ignore his indefinite ARBMAC ban ] (and this wp:ae ]) and launched a full scale campaign editing and edit-warring into the ARBMAC field (hist last block due to edit war was in Scythians). This occurred as soon as he realized that user:Athenean, who sent him to wp:ae in the past, isn't active and therefore he saw this as a great opportunity to return.

Right now he edits in all historical periods (classical, iron age, medieval, etc except from the modern era) and in all related ethnic groups (Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, (origin of) Albanians, Illyrians etc). For the record he is still allowed to edit only in Prehistory and Roman era Balkans per: ], but he decided to render the entire ARBMAC ban useless, pretending that his ban concerns only the modern Macedonia naming dispute, which by the way, was never one of his interests.

Therefore, I believe that a precise definition of his area of restriction is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexikoua is manipulating and unfair, and is maliciously trying to incriminate me for personal reasons. I was placed on Arbmac restriction for edit warring in Ancient Macedonians, which I admit guilt to. Becuase I had one prior block in the Kosovo article and the Scythians (which actually have nothing to do with the Balkans but are from Iran and southern Russia), I was placed on ARBMAC ban. I have never edited article about modern history, wars , conflicts or anything political. My only interest has ever been in ancient history, to which i make substantive, high-quality, good-faithed and neutral edits to; with native-command of English and using the latest and best quality tertiary literature (something that other editors have never even heard of). I have stuck to the terms of my restrictions. I have not touched on amnything regarding ancient macedonians - broadly construed (including Alexander the Great, or the Verginia Sun, etc), nor anything relating to Yugoslavia and its conflicts, politicians, killings, Kosovo status etc etc (and never have). Admin Blade of the northern Lights sclarified to me " Anyways; ARBMAC is generally meant to cover the former countries of Yugoslavia (although in practice, I'd have no problem with you editing articles on Slovenia) as well as the naming dispute between the FYROM and the Greek province" but "The Neolithics and Roman Balkans aren't a problem" and "other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine". Alexikoua brings up the following article which she has problems with my deiting:

Genetic history of the Turkish people. A wholly different people unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute.

Bulgars. An ancient Turkic people unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute.

Peloponessus - a Greek province unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. Quoting the Blade.. other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine

Illyrians an ancient people which lived between the Bronze Age and ROman period; with no bearing in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. As above, her, Blade stipulated Neolithics and Roman Balkans are fair game". (with the implication of time periods in between)

Archaeology of Roman & Medieval Epirus w.r.t Albanians. A separate nation -state with a wholly different people unrelated with no involvement in the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute, focussing solely on archaeology of northern Albania (Thus avoiding the risk of delving into any issue of Greek-Albanian territorial conflicts , etc which I do not even follow or have ever edited in).

Cyrillic alphabet: an article on letters (!) used by almost half of Europe, with no bearing on ARBMAC.

Scythians a wholly unrelated people who lived in Iran , southern Russia and Kazakhstan in 700 BC !, again with no bearing.... that I have other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine

I really think that none of the above articles have anything to do with Arbmac. But see for yourself, and I shall abide by your clarification. Moreover, mark but my edits: . Surely any objective reader can see how academic, neutral and much-needed they are for Misplaced Pages ?! Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the ARBMAC concerns all Balkan related articles, broadly constructed, (Scythians settled also in the Balkans) not the naming dispute (a topic you were never interested) which is a small part of it. Unfortunately, you still avoid Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Area_of_conflict, since you are eager to return to the very same field you created disruption and have been several times blocked in the past (i.e. ancient & medieval Balkans).Alexikoua (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes a "part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans", not anything remotely to do with the Balkans. But the Scythians (which never settled the Balkans FYI), the Illyrians, the Turks, are not part of these interrelated set of problematic modern political issues (and many of them arent even from the Balkans!). And whilst I admit I had edit -warred in the past, I take offence at "you created disruption". My edits are nothing by fair, good-faithed and scholarly. Before casting aspersions, let me remind you of how certain editors (not mentioning any origins) tag-team to appear to reach "concensus' whilst actually holding every article hostage and driving away any well-meaning editor away. This is not fair Misplaced Pages approach. This was the only reason I was blocked from ARBMAC, becuase I eventually succumbed to the frustration of tag-teaming mass reverting of well-referenced material simply becuase you didnt like it. I blame myself for taking the bait, and not seeking other avenues which I am now area of, but these new blames are rediculous Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I admit you are the first user under ARBMAC, so far, who believes that Illyrians, Origin of the Albanians, Macedonians (ethnic group), Bulgarians, have nothing to do with this kind of ban (in fact they are part of the core of Balkan related articles). In case you believe your restriction was unfair, simply ignoring it isn't a sound approach. If you want to respect the community you need to appeal first.Alexikoua (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexikoua, you have already made this complaint on the talk page of the sanctioning administrator, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and they have not yet replied to it. To avoid confusion, you should make such complaints only in one forum at a time, and generally only at WP:AE. If you disagree with whatever The Blade of the Northern Lights decides to do about your complaint, you may request enforcement of the sanction at WP:AE. Sandstein 09:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Alexikoua (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castle

Würden Sie bitte so freundlich sein und sich zu ihrer Aussage ...this is a temporary exhibition about a niche topic in a small country, and of exceedingly limited interest to everybody... hier erklären. Danke schön!--Schönegg (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think no elaboration is needed. Please leave any follow-up comments in the deletion discussion, so that others can follow it, and please use English when commenting in this Misplaced Pages. Thanks, Sandstein 11:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Banning for Good Faith Efforts

Dear Sandstein, you banned me, because on the Global Warming Talk page, I was making good faith efforts to ensure a new editor on his first day was treated fairly and to protect the integrity of the Talk page against censorship - deleting and hiding with fallacious unsigned editorial comments - that would likely lead to bias in the article. However, I recognise that however badly I feel other editors may have behaved, that the 3RR rule is sacred, and even applies when multiple edits are only distantly related, and that the Talk Page Vandalism exemption may only used for cases of vandalism that would be more clear to a majority of other editors. So I will endeavour to reform and edit within the rules in the future. How do I get myself unbanned? cwmacdougall 13:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You may appeal the ban either to me, to WP:AE or to the Arbitration Committee. In order to convince me to lift the ban, you should convince me that you understand why the sanction was applied and that it is not necessary any more. What you write above falls quite a bit short of that. Sandstein 14:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with appealing to you. I understand why the 31 hour sanction was applied, but I certainly do not understand why a longer sanction was applied. I am surprised that you do not find the actions of the other editors to be vandalism, but even if you don't, then surely you can accept that I acted in good faith in thinking they were? It's the first time in several years of editing that I have seen such extraordinary behaviour. Did you actually read through the examples cited? cwmacdougall 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Per WP:NOTVAND, vandalism doesn't simply mean "something I disagree with". Vandalism is the intentional attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages, such as replacing article content with "poop!". The edits you edit-warred to revert were obviously not vandalism.

On the contrary, they were well-founded. If you are of the view that an article is biased, you must not edit-war to have it display a "POV" tag, because that tag in and of itself does nothing to improve the article. You should instead propose and seek consensus for specific changes that would remedy the bias you allege. If you can't find consensus for these changes, then there is also no basis for the "POV" tag. Likewise, per WP:NOTFORUM, article talk pages are not forums for general discussions of the topic of the article, and threads that do not help editors improve the article may be removed.

Because, as you say, you do not understand why I banned you from the article Global warming, the sanction is still necessary. The appeal is declined. You may appeal the sanction to the AE noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, are you talking about the Talk alleged reverts. or the alleged reverts to the article itself? It is difficult to respond to this kind of shotgun attack. The Talk page alleged reverts were reversing vandalism of the Talk pages, where editors were deleting and hiding the contributions of other editors. Nothing to do with disagreeing with content. That was why I was banned for 31 hours. I made very few edits to the Talk page itself, and only after well sourced discussion on the talk page, and stopping that after further discussion. Again, perhaps a short ban might be understandable, but not a permanent ban. cwmacdougall 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Both. The reasons for your article ban are explained in the complaint at WP:AE and in my previous messages. As long as you think anything you reverted was vandalism, there's no point in discussing this further. Sandstein 19:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so we have thought control on Misplaced Pages now, do we? It's not enough to correct behaviour, I have to believe the right things too? I will appeal. cwmacdougall 21:09 19 January, 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. This means that as long as you do not convince me that you understand the reasons for the ban, the ban is still needed to prevent you from resuming the same disruptive conduct. Sandstein 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (law)

I've noticed the edit you have just made to this page. This page is not a guideline. It is only a proposal. Changes to it do not have to reflect consensus, because there is no consensus for any of it in the first place. The whole point of the proposal process would be defeated if we have to wait for consensus before changing a failed proposal. James500 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't remember it being a failed proposal. Sandstein 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IHaveAMastersDegree

It was closed as moot due to IHAMD being checkuser blocked with technical evidence; however, the editor was subsequently unblocked (due to identity confirmed), and therefore this thread should be reopened. I will reopen this shortly. I am leaving this note here because you were involved in the discussion regarding what to do about the editor. - Penwhale | 18:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now acted on the request. Sandstein 21:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am writing to find out if it is permissible to request that the block be lifted temporarily until I have had the opportunity to complete my response. I was inadvertently banned during most of the open discussion process so I was prohibited from editing the discussion page during the time that other individuals were allowed to. I was just preparing my response when the discussion closed so I was unable to post it. Is there a way to request that the discussion be opened long enough to allow me to post a response, so that administrators can consider my defense? If you look at my talk page, you can see that I stated my intention to do that only a few minutes before you posted the topic ban notice closing the discussion. Thank you. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(You may be confusing ban and block.) No, considering that you already had (and used) the opportunity to respond to the complaint after it was made. In any case, now that the sanction has been imposed, it can only be changed by way of appeal, either to me as the sanctioning administrator, or to the AE noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. If you have any arguments that might cause me to reevaluate the necessity of the sanction, you may still present them here. Sandstein 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Banned User:IHaveAMastersDegree, anti-skeptic edits

Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow. Bah. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Be aware that, as a matter of policy, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. If you treat it as such, including rhetorically, you may be sanctioned yourself. Sandstein 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)