Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 19 February 2011 (→Tiananmen page: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Barnstar for you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		You've been doing very good work for a long time, and I wanted to offer you this barnstar. Johnfos (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  07:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

You topic-banned me almost two weeks ago (for two weeks), and I won't get to appeal it this week, so two questions:

1. Can I appeal the topic ban after it expires?

2. Can I appeal an earlier 3RR block at the same time as appealing the topic ban?

3. If successful, will they be both removed from my record?

Cheers Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Nothing prevents you from doing so, but the appeal is likely to be declined as moot.

2. Likewise.

3. No. Block logs cannot be edited, and the ban will continue to be logged together with the outcome of any appeal.  Sandstein  11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There would be something wrong with that wouldn't you say? Just because the ban happens to have expired does not mean its consequences are moot towards my reputation, since you confirm that its results are also recorded in the block logs. Surely then it should be declined based on evidence rather than on relevance to enforcement?

I'm fairly sure based on evidence my appeal would be upheld.

By the way, I hold no personal feelings towards your decision. Based on your activity logs you could not have given my case the time it deserved, and lacking procedural regulations, the outcome was in hind sight predictable.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the ban (and any appeal thereof) is not recorded in the block log, only on the arbitration case page. Apart from that, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I see no point in discussing this further.  Sandstein  21:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi from Peter

Hi Sandstein. I made this edit] to WP:FLAT, an article I substantially created a few years ago. Also various edits to the talk page of Fads and fallacies in the name of science. As I am editing from an IP, is that OK? I don't approve of socking, i.e. editing without making my identity clear. I hope that's OK, please don't revert important contributions to the project, as you have before. Regards User:Peter Damian.

You are banned and may not edit Misplaced Pages for any reason. Accordingly, all your edits are reverted.  Sandstein  11:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I undid your edit on WP:FLAT with the argument that Peter's revision clearly improves the article and so I appealed to WP:IAR (though I forgot to insert the proper link - I am still learning). Concerning his edits to Fads and fallacies in the name of science, I haven't made up my mind whether they actually help the discussion. Concerning your argument for reverting, I suggest that there is here a parallel with WP:OWN in the sense that nobody 'owns' Misplaced Pages.

Just to be clear, I read WP:BAN and I am not proxy-editing. Hpvpp (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted it to way Sandstein had it. I fail to see how it was an improvement, not even close. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Close an RfC?

Hey Sandstein,

I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to review an RfC we've had on Elizabeth II. I'm mulling over bringing this topic to informal mediation, and wanted to get a third opinion before doing so. If you have a moment to look over, comment, and close the RfC, I'd be most grateful.

I'm running this request by you Ludwigs2, and SlimVirgin.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim took care of it. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tuscumbia

Hi Sandstein. Is Tuscumbia supposed to edit South Caucasus-related subjects? The primary restriction of AA2 included the region, which was the main reason Meowy was first primarily sanctioned for (the case was primarily launched after a conflict between an Iranian user and Atabek). Note also that Tuscumbia is editing very controversial subjects. For example, Temur Iakobashvili is a controversial figure implicated in the Ossetian and Abkhazian issues. He is also the co-founder of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, the largest think thank organization of the South Caucasus. The organization is very implicated in Armenia and Azerbaijan issues. - Fedayee (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Links, please.  Sandstein 

See this. Also another example is this, she currently runs this ministry which Tuscumbia has created. Note that those three articles are directly related to the conflict in the South Caucasus, as the figures implicated with the Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts are also directly implicated with the South Caucasus issue, particularly Karabakh. If he can edit those, he can edit Turkey-related articles which involve Armenians or Iran-related articles. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think Tuscumbia should not make these edits? Are they subject to a topic ban, and if so, could you please link to it?  Sandstein  07:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new

Just to say that I and Mike Rosoft have reverted vandalism on your talk page. It has stopped now, and the vandal has been blocked. Anyway, happy editing! Minimac (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I should probably know this

Since when has blocking a sock involved removing all the comments they've ever made? I'm speaking of Peter Damian, so you know. I don't remember seeing this rule on WP:SOCK and I thought I should know it for the future, so I can follow through with it. Clearly, there's a lot of comments that have yet to be removed from Misplaced Pages that need to be, per policy. Silverseren 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking a sock does not involve removing all the comments they've ever made. But blocking a sock of a banned user may involve reverting all edits made in violation of the ban. See WP:BAN.  Sandstein  22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism to this page

FYI - I caught it while doing RecentChange patrolling, and fixed it up best as I could so's you wouldn't have a mess to come back to. Hope you don't mind my boldness. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks!  Sandstein  07:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tiananmen page

Hi Sandstein. I appreciate your digging into the conflict on the Tiananmen page. I have one question and one remark. The question is: is this going to be part of the decision? That is, should I arrange more evidence? In fact, I think the evidence is all there, but I believe there is a problem in the way you have interpreted it. I believe it is mistaken to suggest that the remark I made was misleading, and that my edits were against consensus. A new consensus was forming on the talk page. It was indeed being discussed and hammered out. I was engaged in that discussion, as were a number of others. If I had been saying something misleading, someone would have said so. Instead, the interpretation I had of mine and PCPP's actions was the same as that shared by three other editors in that dispute. SilkTork came along later and suggested that he was pleased with the discussion and editing. Did you read that? Doesn't that--a remark by a respectable editor late in the game--indicate that there was not a major problem with my conduct? Shouldn't it be the case that my conduct in that dispute should be mostly evaluated by the other people involved in it? I mean: what did other people make of the dispute, the ones that were involved in the discussion? You can find that out by reading the talk page. I am wondering whether you are making your own interpretation of that dispute in a way that is quite different from what others appeared to be thinking at the time (as evident from the reversions other editors made to PCPP, the comments they made, SilkTork's remarks, etc.) I reverted PCPP several times, yes: but two or three other editors reverted him multiple times, each of whom, I think, he edit warred with. I know it is not easy to dig through these things. It is time consuming and tricky, and difficult. But I urge you to consult the talk page, which contains an extensive discussion involving multiple parties. Also, if you look at the history carefully, you will see who was reverting who, as I point out above. My edits were entirely in line with the consensus that was being formed.

The issue you point out, about the prominence of it being regarded as a hoax by the government, is one of the areas of dispute, but there were a number of others. In that context, if you look at the evidence carefully, you will see that it is PCPP who was being disruptive and editing against consensus, not participating in proper discussion. I need to know whether I am expected to prepare a timeline of that editing, because I believe you have misunderstood. Or maybe one of the other people involved will clarify the situation. I'm not sure. So my question is: will your interpretation of that dispute be considered in handing out sanctions in this case? Secondly, should I prepare a timeline of the events which properly show (in my opinion, and I am confident in the opinions of the various others involved) what really happened in the discussion and reverting on that page?

By the way, you should know that from now on I will never revert PCPP more than once per day, and never on two consecutive days. Secondly, I will never again call him a troll etc. I suggest you look closely at the number of people PCPP has edit warred with on these pages and his paltry contributions to the discussions. The most problematic thing is that he has created battleground environments that drive good contributors away. I have not done that. I've worked with people, compromised, changed my mind, etc. etc. I believe all this is evident in the talk page discussions--my regrettable remarks about PCPP notwithstanding. By the way: did you read the timeline I assembled of the events on the anthropogenic disasters page? It again differs from your analysis. I would like to be sure that you have read it, and that the deliberations are being made with a clear picture of what actually happened at the forefront. --Asdfg12345 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(This relates to WP:AE#PCPP.) In reply to your question, you can write whatever you want, but as a practical matter the more you write, the less it is it likely to be read in depth.

In reply to your remark, at the time you first reverted PCPP's removal of your changes, the talk page discussion consisted of you and one other editor. A two day discussion between two editors is not enough by far to form consensus for wide-ranging changes to a featured article in a highly contentious topic area.

I have read your timeline, but since it omits your own reverts, I do not find it useful and have preferred to write my own analysis.  Sandstein  18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. I am reproducing it here with my reverts bolded. This was there for all to see. This is the timeline that happened. I am astonished that you say you did not notice that it included my own reverts. This tells me that you are already convinced that I'm someone who need not be listened to and can simply be banned.

1. I add Falun Gong to list of genocides and alleged genocides
2. PCPP removes the entire row of information with a terse explanation asking for reliable sources
3. Homunculus puts it back with “Reuters as a reliable source, both for low estimate of death toll and for reference to genocide.” (Reuters piece cites, but does not itself endorse, the low-end death toll estimate).
4. PCPP reverts wholesale again, removing all information. He leaves another terse edit summary saying “Reuters simply quoted FLG Info Center,” and thus is not a RS
5. Homunculus leaves a note on PCPP’s talk page to discuss why he removed the information twice, and suggesting that if he takes issue with the quality of one reference, the solution is not to delete an entire row of content. Threatens to revert back again.
6. Homunculus reneges on threat to revert, and instead notified PCPP that he will attempt to find solutions through a discussion on the talk page
7. Homunculus starts talk page discussion, seeking feedback on the questions of whether Falun Gong should be included in list at all, and if so, how to solve the RS issue.
8. PCPP says to Homunculus on his talk page: “Oh great, appearing merely 4 hours after my edits and begin reverting, you're obviously up to something...The material is added simply to prove a POINT.” He then goes on to expand on his comments, saying to Homunculus: “I don't know whether you're here to edit an encyclopedia or help spread FLG propaganda.”
9. Homunculus seeks input from {user|SilkTork}, who has been a mostly neutral and careful administrator, to weigh in and attempt to quickly arrive at a solution before matters escalate.
10. SilkTork writes on the talk page: "Use one of these sources, and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them.”
11. 14:37 Seeing that there is a consensus that Falun Gong should be included in the list of alleged genocides (i.e., Homunculus, SilkTork--PCPP had said nothing on the talk page and had only attacked Homunculus so far.) Asdfg12345 reverts PCPP for the first time (the notorious ‘go away’ remark. DOH.)
12. 14:42 PCPP reverts, again removing entire row of content on Falun Gong against consensus.
13. 15:05 Asdfg reverts again, with some handwringing.

I stand corrected with respect to your not including your reverts. But nonetheless I do not see how this timeline brings anything new to my evaluation of the problem.  Sandstein  18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It clearly shows the context within which the reverting was done. You said "There has been belated talk page discussion." -- but this shows that talk page discussion and consensus seeking was involved from the beginning. It shows that my first revert was made after three editors had already agreed to including the material. That is crucial. It also shows that PCPP did not engage in proper discussion until after he had been reverted twice by two people. Aren't both these facts extremely telling? I would suggest that my behaviour here was not all that bad, because PCPP, as a longtime disruptive editor, was editing against consensus--I reverted him twice. I wish it was just once. But he had already warred with Homunculus, who is pretty new to the whole Falun Gong editing thing. This is a baptism of fire, I'd say. I need to know whether that explanation exculpates me from guilt in this case. If it does not then I will just give up the ghost. If it does, then I will present a better analysis of the Tiananmen incident, which I believe you have misread. So please tell me. And, you should know that I am genuinely sorry to use your time on this; on the other hand you stepped into it so you have a conscience responsibility to see it through, and see it done properly. I just now need to know whether you consider me guilty here, in light of this evidence. If so, then goodbye. If not, then I can further show, through diffs, that I am not as guilty as you think in the Tiananmen incident as well. And in both cases it is PCPP who is more guilty. Far more. --Asdfg12345 18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You make the mistaken assumption that misconduct by PCPP excuses or mitigates misconduct by you. That is not so. Everybody is judged, so to speak, only on their own merits. If two people each disrupt Misplaced Pages, both are sanctioned, rather than neither of them. Your explanation therefore does not make me reconsider my assessment. (I am not speaking in terms of guilt because criminal justice terminology is inappropriate for dispute resolution on a website.)  Sandstein  19:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• My scolding of PCPP was obviously a joke. Things that happened three months ago are not stale. I think you should look through the whole history of his editing I assembled in an RfC. This is a dispute with a very, very long background. I am saying that the recent edits can only be understood in the context of longterm disruptive editing behaviour from this person. You cannot just discount a whole range of evidence which has led to this point. It is of course inappropriate to leave stupid edit summaries scolding people. I can only throw my arms up in the air and say something like: please look further back and see how conciliatory I have been for so long, and that, only after all this time have I finally lost patience and simply want to stop the charade that he is here for any productive purpose. It is evident that other editors have already reached this point with him, after only a few months. Your analysis should be properly focused on this question: is PCPP a disruptive editor? Are his edits contributive or disruptive? Are his talk page remarks contributive or disruptive? Do other editors find him contributive or disruptive? I believe you should ask those questions. If you want to carry out a separate analysis of my behaviour and speech, please do so. That's another matter. --Asdfg12345 18:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am widely known for not having a sense of humor, and tend to take the things people write at face value. In the context of the longterm conflict between you two, in particular, I am not inclined to view your scolding of PCPP as a joke. Jokes are made between friends and colleagues, whereas your mutual conduct is uncollegial. With respect to PCPP's alleged longterm history of disruption, it is your responsibility to make that case via diffs. Allegations without evidence in the form of diffs are worse than worthless, they are disruptive in and of themselves. My AE review is normally limited to the diffs you submit as evidence, and to your own editing in the context of these diffs.  Sandstein  18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, final note. I have no idea how this thing works, it seems admins do it in a black box, but I left this note to BorisG in an attempt to open up the discussion. I'm quite concerned with the hastiness and lack of thoroughness with which the evidence has been discussed. Perhaps it is the case that, at this point, no one has an interest in real justice and that, like a father dealing with fighting children, punishments are simply handed out indiscriminately, just because you raised a ruckus. The father does not go and patiently find out what happened: he lashes out. If that is what's happening, then that's a shame. If not, and there is an aspiration to arrive at a fair decision and one based on the all the evidence (I've been saying that word a lot) and testimony from others, then I suggest you stay the decision and wait until there has been wider input and a more thorough and impartial dissection of, for example, the dispute on the Tiananmen page. And to see whether others would just as quickly as you rule out the last several years of problematic editing. Anyway. I'm sure you're doing your best. I don't mean anything against you. UPDATE: OK, so what do you want diffs for, and how long do I have to prepare them? --Asdfg12345 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is run by volunteers who have limited time. Enforcement discussions are therefore normally brief and to the point. I have already given the case you brought some four hours of my time, which is more than enough. Merely because you disagree with my assessment does not mean that it is not thorough and impartial. In reply to your question, if you believe that PCPP has engaged in longterm disruption, you need to prove this via diffs, not merely allege it. The choice of diffs is up to you, but the evidence should be well-structured and well-described. You have time until your topic ban I am proposing at WP:AE takes effect, which could be anytime from hours to days depending on the feedback of other admins.  Sandstein  18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I am genuinely sorry that I wasted four hours of your time. Evidence of longterm disruption is in the RfC below. My only violations are against PCPP. PCPP's violations are against many other editors and against core wikipedia principles. Regarding diffs, I will provide some for the Tiananmen dispute which I believe exculpates me. But I can't help thinking you have already made up your mind. --Asdfg12345 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have made up my mind to the extent that I have proposed certain sanctions for you and PCPP at WP:AE based on the evidence presented there. You can still convince me otherwise, but you would need to be very convincing indeed.  Sandstein  18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For diffs on his longterm conduct see here. Skip the discussion, just go straight to the diffs and spend 10 minutes looking through them. This has gone on for years. --Asdfg12345 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but I note that this RFC did not result in substantial support for your position, but rather the contrary. It is therefore not a sufficient basis for sanctions against PCPP.  Sandstein  18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What? No. That is not the case at all... the people who responded in favor of him were all longterm anti-Falun Gong editors. That may sound laughable as a serious response, but did you read Jayenn's note? Did you notice that they were all mutually reinforcing each other? Please read Jayen's thing here:

We should approach this RFCU with an open mind. The diffs provided here need to be looked at and analysed; some of them do appear to raise valid concerns. This edit by PCPP removes adequately sourced content with an edit summary of "copyedit". I also at first glance see no obvious reason why none of the sourced material removed in this edit should have been suitable.

Many of those who have commented above are already involved in the POV disputes. This needs wider community input and thorough analysis. --JN466 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I think I am just going to forget this. We've both got better things to do. I have one request: make it a six-month ban for me, please. After that I will just stick to my simple two rules and never get into trouble again. Yes, I have an opinion, and yes, I assert it, but the crucial point of compromise and how I interact with other editors has been entirely neglected in your analysis. You've only looked at how I interact with PCPP. But according to others, PCPP himself is a highly problematic character who brings nothing but endless disruption. That is an extremely important point to grasp. I'm guilty of nothing but thwarting someone who himself wrecks the Wikepedia experience for several non-SPA editors. --Asdfg12345 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)