User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/March

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An AfD on an article we've both worked on...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Turner (actress) Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added an opinion. Sandstein 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Google hits

Hi, I'm not sure if your comment beginning with "While neither Google..." has anything to do with what I said. If not, please disregard this notice. If so, please note that the figure of 85,000 doesn't come from a plain Google search, it comes from a custom search engine which only searches sites which are generally speaking considered reliable by Wikipedia. This is tool I've been using for a couple years, and find it to be incredibly useful. Again, if your comment had nothing to do with what I said, my appologies. And feel free to delete this post from your talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, though in general I think my point remains valid: a number of search results, from whatever engine, can't really answer the question of WP:GNG of whether there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 16:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, strictly speaking, a human being should start reading through these sources, verify that they are indeed reliable, and that the coverage is substantial, but with 85,000 I personally find it almost impossible that such sources don't exist. That's good enough for my !vote. But if it's one of my articles, or one that I care about, I will put in the time and effort and produce a list of 10-15 sources to prove GNG is met. But it's not. I'll let others do the work. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Special attention regarding E4024

Hello Sandstein, I would like to bring attention to the fact that banned user E4024 has implied that I am a "chauvinist irredentist android who is around with a shameful defamation agenda." This insult is undoubtedly towards me since I was the one who brought about Konullu's ban. He has also implied that I am a racist in the past thus indicating a history of insults and now added insults to injury towards me. Thank you.Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you're not named, I think it's best to just ignore this. Sandstein 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean like ignoring this one? --E4024 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with German citations

Hallo Sandstein! I saw your name listed on the Local Embassy as someone who could assist with German language issues. At Talk:Dany Bahar, a COI editor is suggesting changes. I've left some comments, but one thing I cannot do is evaluate a couple of citations they've given. They're websites from Switzerland that are written in German. Aside from a few words and phrases, I don't speak German, so I am not able to determine if they are reliable sources. Would you be able to check these and give us your opinion as to whether these are valid sources? Any assistance you can offer is much appreciated. Danke! --Drm310 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll reply there. Sandstein 19:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military commanders (2nd nomination)

Please userfy this, as suggested in your close. Warden (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, at User:Colonel Warden/List of military commanders. Sandstein 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

E4024, again

He's violating his topic ban as soon as his block expired [1] [2]. Athenean (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll see to it. Sandstein 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverfly (airline)

How can anyone find this result to be other than keep? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was relisted once, and I feel that the "keep" opinions are somewhat weak, in that they refer to this company's "scheduled passenger flight service" without addressing the other arguments advanced for deletion. At any rate, the outcome is the same. Sandstein 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you have stated "the outcome is the same" explains how someone could find this result to be other than keep. But closing as "no consensus" when the closing should have been "keep" punishes me for making the effort to clean up the mess at the article, and clarify the story that the hyperbole of the nomination sought to hide. I've reviewed the issue of "without addressing the other arguments advanced for deletion". I found no such arguments. All of the points were either fallacious from the beginning or addressed by cleaning up the article and included in the debate by referring to WP:NTEMP. I'll go over those points one-by-one if you want. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

My ban appeal

Hi Sandstein,

the reason why I went to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_POVbrigand to appeal my ban and not to the committee was because of this "In principle, any blocked user may appeal their block to the Arbitration Committee as a last resort, after other attempts to have the block lifted have failed." Wikipedia:APPEAL#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my question was why you didn't appeal it to the banning administrator first. Sandstein 11:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that was an option. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (2nd nomination)

You closed this as a no consensus, I began a merger discussion here during which I found an academic source which says "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. Am I correct then in assuming that the Hindu Taliban article is nothing more than a POV fork of hindutva? I was thinking of nominating it for deletion based on this but as the previous AFD was so recent I am unsure. Can you offer any advice? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are correct then in assuming that; I have no knowledge about the topic. In principle, you should renominate articles for deletion only if there is substantial new information that could lead to a different outcome, or if our inclusion standards have since substantially changed. Sandstein 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Query re: blocked IP

Hello Sandstein, I wondered if you could assist me. I was doing some research after realising my IP was blocked. I only found out yesterday and it expired total. I was blocked as my IP was linked to an account called Havengore. On the admin notice board I have noticed you had blocked this person indef. now , I am in no way linked to him or know any of the people he has been editing yet there are claims I am. How can I rectify this and should I be concerned that Havengore appears to have the same IP as me? Thank you for your advice. (86.130.197.194 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Hi. If you are not Havengore, I recommend creating a user account, as this will hide your IP, and also prevent you from being affected from most IP or IP range blocks. It is not uncommon for users to share IP ranges, so you need not be particularly concerned. Sandstein 17:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking on an old page

Hi Sandstein, Hope you are doing well.

I just want to check how can I edit this page (which was deleted earlier) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DinCloud,_Inc.

I work at this company, and I agree that 1 year ago we were just a start-up with very limited coverage by media and analysts. 2012 was a very successful year for us, and we gained a lot of (natural) attention by media and research analysts/firms. Now I would like to request you guys, if you can allow me to draft this page, to feature my company info.

Would appreciate your response.

Many thanks.

202.125.141.50 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Please see below few articles from well-known sources (i.e. CIO.com, Microsoft, TechTarget, etc.)

by TechTarget (an authority in IT and cloud computing niche): http://searchstoragechannel.techtarget.com/news/2240170642/DinCloud-partners-with-NetApp-for-new-cloud-backup-DR-service

451 Research - A leading research company in IT and Cloud computing space: https://451research.com/report-short?entityId=75792

by CIO.com (they ranked us in top 10 hot cloud startups - see #6) http://www.cio.com.au/article/455545/10_hot_cloud_startups_watch/

by Microsoft - The did a case-study on our cloud-based solution: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=710000001352

By PC World, Network World, and CIO.com (ranked in top 5 cloud hosted desktop providers) http://www.pcworld.com/article/255906/consider_desktops_in_the_cloud_for_byod.html?page=3 http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2012/052112-desktop-as-a-service-test-259090.html?page=3 http://www.cio.com/article/706752/Consider_Desktops_in_the_Cloud_for_BYOD?page=3&taxonomyId=3024

by TMCnet - a global, integrated media company (on our 500% growth in 2012) http://it.tmcnet.com/topics/it/articles/2012/12/12/319521-dincloud-continues-record-growth-focuses-cloud-storage.htm

by SMBnation (on our release of NetApp-based second-site replication service) http://www.smbnation.com/index.php/content/news/entry/dincloud-releases-second-site-replication-service

By CRN - the top news source for solution providers and the IT channel.

On winning the 2013 Channel Chief Award: http://www.crn.com/channel-chiefs/cc2013-details.htm?c=214

Our CTO and company: http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/240149855/30-notable-it-executive-moves-february-2013.htm?pgno=31

Please do let me know, if you need any more reference.

202.125.141.50 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That does sound as though the company is now notable enough. However, since you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), you should not recreate the article yourself. You may use the processes Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia:Articles for creation to ask others to recreate it, though. Sandstein 17:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Is it possible that you can restore the article to my user space? Maybe I can help the IP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. It's at User:A Quest For Knowledge/DinCloud. Sandstein 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thanks!

@202.125.141.50: If you want, you can work on the article in my user space. Just remember you're not writing a promotional piece. Try to keep the language fair and neutral. I made some minor changes to tone the language down.[3] Feel free to ask any questions you have on my talk page. We also have a Wikipedia:Help desk where you can ask questions. When you feel the article's ready, I can move it to main article space for you. Good luck. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:NOPAY

Hi Sandstein. I am engaged in some discussions about COI editing and wanted to get your opinion specifically about the state of policy regarding corporate representatives, pr professionals, and paid freelance article writers. Those editors would all be paid, of course. Do you believe that these editors are inherently advocates by the nature of their external relationships with clients/employers, or rather that whether they are doing "paid advocacy" depends on their behavior and edits. My current reading of WP:NOPAY suggests that these editors are not prohibited from participating here, but that they are very strongly discouraged from editing directly, unless the edits are clearly uncontroversial. I'd appreciate your feedback, since I want to make sure I'm not unclear about the guideline as currently written. Best, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a difficult and largely unresolved wikiphilosopical dispute, and I'm not sure where the balance of opinion is at the moment. I tend to believe that in theory paid editing should be disallowed because paid editors are inherently non-neutral, but that in practice tolerating paid editing with the expectation that it is completely transparent and subject to review is the better option, because otherwise paid editors are just incentivized to cover their tracks well, and at any rate there are other causes of non-neutral editing, such as ideology or faith, which would be much more problematic to sanction. Kind of like the war on drugs, where in theory prohibiting drugs is a good idea, but in practice it tends not to work. I think that your current reading of the guideline is correct, and that paid editors are in practice only tolerated to the extent they behave exceptionally well and attract no community attention of any kind. Sandstein 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. I am drafting some comment questions in an attempt to further clarify our approach in this area. Would you take a look and see if you think the scope and presentation of those questions could be fair, useful, and effective in doing so? Link: User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

These sound like reasonable questions to me, but I haven't followed the issue closely enough to be certain how they may be received. Sandstein 07:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hi Sandstein, this is a message to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has past a motion regarding a request clarification you submitted on the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. The full text of the amendment can be seen here, and the full discussion here. Feel free to discuss this on the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to the arbitrators for addressing this ambiguity. Sandstein 06:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User in difficulties

A particular editor's comments at the Fascism talk page [4] [5] and at the UTP of one of his co-editors [6] may need some attention. Although he announced his latest retirement on Feb 26, he has continued posting in this increasingly vituperative vein while the retirement banner has been on his user page; he removed it at last today, with an edit summary saying it "will be restored in a day, after I say my mind on that asshole user at Talk:Fascism, then I'm gone." This will be his third or fourth "retirement". Please would you take a look? Writegeist (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Retirement" has for all practical purposes no meaning on Wikipedia. Yes, the user is very angry and does not seem to behave constructively overall, but... what do you want me to do? I'm not sure that the situation is sufficiently clear to warrant administrative action. Have you tried any formal WP:DR? Sandstein 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No I just meant if he genuninely intended to retire in the permanent sense then the behaviour's downward spiral would be of no concern. As the retirement will almost certainly prove temporary, the apparent unwillingness to rein in the temper and abandon the egregious personal insults will lead to a block, sooner or later, to protect against further instances. Whereas a word of friendly advice from an independent, non-aggressive admin about collegial discussion (or at least about the undesirability of repeatedly calling co-editors on article talk pages assholes or fucking hypocrites or whatever) might help prevent the drama. I realize your mileage may vary. Anyway, thanks for your time. Writegeist (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Hello, Sandstein. I noticed you declined the unblock request from User:Yeoberry. I think this editor is problematic in more ways than one and would like to point something out separate and apart from the edit warring. Take a look at this article: Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. Check the history, 99% of it was recently created by the editor (take note he also deleted the notability tag here). In it, a Mr. John B. Carpenter figures prominently who "earned a Ph.D. in church history". Compare that information to the edit summaries seen here and here, as well as the fact that the editor reverted and re-inserted something he wrote from a theological journal he wrote in 2001, back into another article here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there might be a bit of COI there. I wonder what the connections to FRI and SPLC are. - Mr X 02:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry also created John B. Carpenter which was deleted. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That does look like a conflict of interest. However, editing with a COI is not actually forbidden, so what would you like me to do? Sandstein 10:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, having a COI in and of itself is not verboten, and a COI editor might still be adding valued content. There is nothing to "do" here per se, but it is worth taking note of and keeping an eye on as the COI is undeclared. If you take a closer look at the insertion of his journal work, he states that John Carpenter turned Foegel's theory on its head. After his work was removed by Rjensen as a "fringe theory", he immediately reverted with the edit summary "an academic source close to the leading proponent who publishes an alternative view in a major journal deserves mention". He also tried to author a BLP about himself. When he removed the notability tag from the article he created about the church he pastors, he did not use an edit summary. If you take a look at the article talk pages from this week, many of the editor's posts involve quickly accusing others of POV-pushing and bias, and he uses edit summaries like "stop POV-pushing", "MrX's POV-pushing", etc. There is nothing to "do" here at present, but I think it's useful for an admin be aware of the undeclared COI in light of the combative behavior. Perhaps after the block expires, we'll see nothing but unbiased collegiate and collaborative contributions? Let's hope so. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted an edit he made referencing a journal article in a minor journal (which he falsely calls a "major journal") that no one seems to have cited anywhere in the last decade. That made it fringe. If he wrote it himself it's double-trouble. Rjensen (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the notability tag on the church, deleted some links involving Carpenter which seemed promotional, added some headers to the talk page and started a discussion on its notability. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You recently gave me notice concerning one of my sources. I have questions.

You recently sent me a note concerning my sources. You told me not to quote voltairenet. Thierry Meyssan is the creator of this site, and he is a world renowned journalist, political scientist, and intellectual. His work is cited in many publications, and he is considered to be a legitimate source on this subject because he was a close personal friend of Claud Covassi. This close association is widely acknowledged, making him a legitimate source for this subject.

The previous version of the Claud Covassi entry was so incredibly biased, and incorrect it cannot be left in its previous condition. It was/is slanderous, and libelous. The previous entry labeled him as a "Spy and Criminal", then went on to make totally baseless accusations that have no references. The Wikipedia article stated that Claud was a Major cocaine importer, yet Claud has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any cocaine crimes. He personally denied any criminal activities. The only official reference to criminal activity was the very unusual filing of charges against him for allegedly selling steroids in Thailand while he taught kick boxing. These charges appeared 10 years after the alleged act, based entirely upon hearsay evidence. Steroids are sold over the counter in Thailand, not requiring a prescription. Most people accept the act that these charges were bogus, and were retribution for Claud's blowing the whistle on Swiss Intelligence agencies for their attempts to frame an innocent man.

Don't let Wikipedia become the sanctuary for those who want to slander whistle blowers, and silence those who come forward with government wrong doing. Claud is no dead. Died under very unusual circumstances. The effort to ruin his name is comprehensive. Don't play a part in it by letting that previous entry stand.

Don't allow Wikipedia to be relegated to the dust bin of irrelevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.145.82 (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thierry Meyssan's article indicates that he is known mainly for propagating fringe theories, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, which does not make him more reliable in my book. His site "voltairenet" is a blog which per our policy WP:SPS we may not use as a source. If he was a friend of the subject, then that makes him particularly unsuited as a source, because reliable sources should not be closely related to the subject. We must instead base our articles, such as Claude Covassi, on what reliable published sources write (see WP:V), even if you think that they got it wrong. Sandstein 20:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure

The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion "very shortly".

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I came late to the party. I too am interested in procedures for DS notification and logging of notification. Please tickle my talk page if there's open discussion you know about. You can find my discussions of the issue following the links in my comments in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions clean up

Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I just came here to say I think you're doing a good job and trying the best under difficult circumstances. I have seen and commented on the SMcCandlish/Fyunck thing at AE. I don't think either should be sanctioned as the trouble in this case (I can't know all cases) stems from differing interpretations of your close: "Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular". I personally think that was a clear and accurate close and understand it to cover leads as well as titles. But evidently Fyunck sincerely believes it allows his leads, hence drama like the WP:BOLLOCKS diff. If there are really bad eggs here, then a clearer case for sanction will inevitably occur sooner rather than later, but in the meantime, some clarification on how your close relates to those leads (clarification either way) would pour oil on the water. This is only a tentative suggestion, good luck with however you progress this. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. But I don't see the connection between the RfC and the AE request. The former is about how to render the names of tennis players in Wikipedia, and it may well be that there are disagreements about how to apply the outcome, but if so, they are content disagreements and consequently irrelevant to AE. The arbitration process, and by extension AE, is about conduct, in this case, a battleground-like approach to resolving MOS disagreements that results in personal attacks and abuses of process. These are the problems that AE is concerned with, no matter whether the underlying content disagreemaents concern diacritics in tennis player names, the Arab-Israeli conflict, or something else altogether. As to your suggestion concerning clarification of the RfC result, I can try if somebody asks me, but in general I believe that the closer of an RfC has no particular authority in content disagreements (and in view of my activity at AE I'd rather not involve myself in content issues altogether). Sandstein 16:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish and a topic ban

Your topic ban of SMcCandlish states that in you have instated the topic ban in your capacity as an uninvolved admin. I am here to inform you that you are, in absolutely no way, uninvolved. Your ongoing conflict with this editor and in this topic area is the very essence of involved, and your conflict of interest is palpable to outside editors, like me. You are doing a disservice to yourself and to the entire admin community by imposing sanctions that would be far more appropriate from literally any other administrator. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that "conflict" consists of SMcCandlish disagreeing very intensively with my assessment of his conduct which I have made in my capacity as an administrator enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision. Such disagreements are to be expected in the course of administrative action, which is why WP:INVOLVED provides that interactions in an administrative role, at length if necessary, do not constitute involvement. Sandstein 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And that's the problem. Your entire involvement in this area has been marked by a persistent unwillingness to reexamine your own perceptions and actions. You see your actions as simply carrying out normal functions, but from the outside, your threats and punitive sanctions against this, and other editors, has the marked appearance of hopeless conflict of interest, and your continued refusal to examine the history of these issues and instead relying on your initial perceptions and the reaction thereto, has made you hopelessly WP:Involved when it comes to many of the editors involved in this dispute. Your initial questionable judgement has been combined with an unfortunate intransigence which has made your involvement incredibly unseemly, and your continued persistence in meting out punitive sanctions undermines your moral authority to exercise sysop tools. Please; leave this conflict area immediately. Your continued presence harms both yourself and the project. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You and the user on whose behalf you write are certainly at liberty to disagree with my administrative actions at AE, but the proper way to contest them would be filing an appeal against those actions, rather than demanding my recusal. Sandstein 06:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not writing on anyone's behalf, least of all SMcCandlish, whom I originally watchlisted to keep an eye on. I am not contesting anything, as I am not a party to any conflict. I am not demanding anything, as I do not actually care whether a particular editor is topic banned or not. I am telling you that your actions are harmful to this project. You can act with an introspection that you have not shown before, but make no mistake, I am talking for myself and only for myself: your actions and attitude are destroying your credibility as an admin, and your continued insistence that you are acting without bias is self-delusional. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The hull has suffered irreparable damage, and the ship is sinking fast. The greatest irony, I think, is that the torpedo was self-launched. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

Sandstein, it occurs to me that you should not be reviewing the appeal of Brandmeister's sanction as an uninvolved editor. As you were one of the admins who supported the sanction in the initial AE case you would be involved with regards to an appeal of said sanction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a valid argument, but I'm not sure whether you're right. I understand how one might think so. But technically? WP:INVOLVED describes the concept of involvement as "current or past conflicts ... and disputes on topics", which does not apply to me in relation to Brandmeister. Additionally, I reviewed the original request against Brandmeister in my administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[o]ne important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." So according to the wording of the policy I'm uninvolved in the sense of that policy.

Now, as a practical matter, should administrators who have expressed a view on a sanction (rather than imposed it themselves) recuse themselves from later discussion about that sanction? In theory, to prevent the appearance of bias, the answer should probably be yes. But the number of admins participating at AE is normally so low that, if they all recused themselves from commenting on appeals where they previously expressed an opinion about the sanction, the result may well be that there will not be enough uninvolved contributors in order for the qualified consensus needed to overturn a sanction to emerge from the discussion, and as a result most appeals to AE will be doomed to failure. If they don't recuse, they may well form a new opinion about the original sanction, as I did in the case you refer to, or they may conclude that the reason for the original sanction no longer applies, e.g. because the appellant has credibly promised not to repeat whatever misconduct he was sanctioned for. In addition, it is probably preferable for sanctions to be supported by a rough agreement of admins active at AE, because this will make it more likely that the sanction is not completely out of bounds. We should therefore not encourage admins not to comment on sanctions proposed by their colleagues just in case they may need to review an appeal later.

For these reasons, on balance, I consider that it's probably preferable for me to comment on appeals of sanctions I've previously commented about as an administrator, while however making it clear that I did so, so that whoever closes the appeal thread may still take this into consideration and, if they consider it appropriate, not take my view into account when assessing consensus. However, the question remains a valid one. I'm asking AGK (talk · contribs), the arbitrator who I understand is working on proposals to clarify AE appeals procedure, to take the question into consideration and perhaps offer a solution in his proposals. Sandstein 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You are involved with regards to questions about your administrative actions, period. It is why unblock requests have to be reviewed by a new admin. Lord Roem understands this as he commented as an involved party. The idea is for people who weren't involved in the initial sanction to review the action. Obviously, someone who imposed the sanction is more likely to try and preserve it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that whoever imposes a sanction is involved in any appeal. But in this case I did not impose the sanction that is now being appealed. I merely commented on whether I thought it was appropriate - which is not a use of administrative powers. Following your argument, I would have had to recuse no matter whether I commented positively or negatively. Sandstein 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, because that would be a good idea either way. One suggests that you might be biased in favor of an appeal, the other suggests you might be biased in opposition of an appeal.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and an argument can be made for that position, but for the abovementioned reasons I am not entirely convinced by it. Sandstein 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it you cannot see when you are involved here, either? How are you blind to this pattern? Commenting as an "uninvolved admin", not as a regular user in a "Statement by" section, is in fact "a use of administrative powers", and one that you actually show a clear pattern of engaging in when it's inappropriate. You're behaving like a cop who wears his uniform to a party; you don't seem able to tell when your "duty" role is and is not appropriate, and quite a a bit of difficulty in putting it down when it seriously isn't in the context. I know how much you like to see patterns; try applying such analysis to your own actions for a change. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, you have announced on your talk page that you intend to appeal the topic ban I imposed on you. So as not to have to repeat myself, I would like to respond to your concerns about that ban in one place, that is, in response to your appeal if and when you submit it. Thanks, Sandstein 05:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Different topics, albeit connected. My concerns about your involvement in Brandmeister's appeal and the pattern it's forming are related to but not identical to those relating to your ban against me, which are more personal. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?

Did you actually just topic ban an editor for filing an AE request after he had withdrawn it and apologised? Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I banned SMcCandlish at [7] for, as explained there, making a frivolous arbitration enforcement request – but not for that alone, but rather as the last point in a pattern of battleground conduct. The withdrawal did not contain an apology, but a very much qualified possibility of one, predicated on the future conduct of his opponent ("Maybe I even really am flat-out wrong about your posts, too, as you say; if time shows this to be the case, I will owe you an apology"). That is entirely unconvincing. More importantly, it did not reflect an understanding by SMcCandlish that (and why) his conduct was problematic. Also, the request was only withdrawn after several administrators agreed that the request was sanctionable. In view of that, the withdrawal would need to have been accompanied by a much less ambiguous statement to convince me that it reflected not merely a tactical maneuver to avoid being sanctioned, but rather a genuine understanding by SMcCandlish that the request (as well as his prior battleground conduct) was disruptive, and that such conduct would not reoccur. Sandstein 19:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm no defender of SMcCandlish - indeed I think his antics regarding WP:BIRDS were completely disruptive - but that topic ban does really strike me as a bit punitive. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That was not my aim; my aim was to prevent reocurrences of battleground behavior in this topic area. A topic ban is better suited to this than the block proposed by another administrator would have been. Sandstein 11:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How can you say that with a straight face? You proposed topic-banning me for an entire year (after previously, in the AE request brought by someone else, proposing to block not topic ban me for a year), when Mr. Stradivarius proposed a one-week block (which I would also appeal as punitive nonsense, but that's not the point). I filed an AE request that quickly failed because the evidence was decided by you and some other admins to be too old to be relevant; the merits of that evidence were never discussed, and so there is no case to be made that it was poor, thus no case to be made this was part of some disruptive "pattern" with regard to MOS/AT. That request should have been closed immediately with no sanctions for anyone, on that technicality, but you decided to turn into in a very lengthy SMcCandlish witchhunt. The fact that MOS/AT even had anything to do with it at all was incidental and inevitable – ARBATC only applies to MOS/AT discussions, so I could not have brought any other sort of request to AE for enforcement under ARBATC in the first place. Your implacable zeal to see my virtual mouth taped shut and to be the one to do the taping has blinded you to basic logic in more than one way when it comes to any dispute involving me.

The fact that my evidence was thrown out on a technicality and not shown to be faulty on the merits is why I did not issue Fyunck(click) an apology; the evidence is actually quite damning, and the user has a long history of serious disruption with numerous blocks. I rescinded the AE request because it was clearly being rejected by multiple admins on the evidence-age technicality, and thus was a waste of time for everyone involved. Your theory that I did it to cover my own butt is yet another blatant assumption of bad faith on your part toward me, one of several. Besides, there is no principle at AE that apology leads to no sanctions, so I would have had no basis to assume making one would have any effect on what happened with regard to me, which I am near-certain would have been a warning until you just couldn't resist unrecusing yourself to dump an excessive, WP:POINTy punishment on me. Has any admin ever unrecused themself before? That's so weird and unwise, it might be a unique occurrence. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, you have announced on your talk page that you intend to appeal the topic ban I imposed on you. So as not to have to repeat myself, I would like to respond to your concerns about that ban in one place, that is, in response to your appeal if and when you submit it. Thanks, Sandstein 05:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just giving you an opportunity to resolve this yourself, as plenty of others have suggested you do, instead of involving yet more process. I'll take this as you declining. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kumioko's block log

I can't figure out the deal with this -- the user's block log shows only two blocks, both this year, but its clear from looking over some old talk pages that he was blocked before that. Am I doing doing something wrong in the query, or what? Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe they were blocked as a previous user account? Sandstein 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, but it's not important, although I hope the block logs generally are showing correctly. I took a quick look because I was surprised to see such an accomplished editor being shown the door. But I don't know if anything else could have been done. Interesting and sad case of a good career going off the rails, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of a sad story. The original account was Kumioko (renamed) (talk · contribs). About a year ago, he got into a dispute with Markvs88 (talk · contribs) when Kumioko added WikiProject US tags to the talk page of a few Connecticut articles and Mark removed them. That led to further controversy over his rather broad notions of the WikiProject US scope (many articles with "American" in the name seemed to be getting tagged on that basis alone), Kumioko didn't get the support he'd hoped for on the Village Pump, and ultimately got blocked for edit-warring. That set off a full-scale "Dramageddon" (as he later put it), including POINTy opposes at RfA, an attempt to MfD WP:DIVA after someone applied it to him, and a prolonged quitting process which ended with him scrambling the password to that account. About two days later, he reappeared as ShmuckatellieJoe (talk · contribs), pretending to be a new user and trolling Markvs88. He ultimately got caught because he was editing with both that account and an IP address and signed a ShmuckatellieJoe post as "formerly Kumioko" [8] (plus the obvious stylistic similarities), although he insisted on denying it to the end. About a month later, he got tired of editing by IP, and got a new account and retook the Kumioko name; see here.

He continued doing some useful tagging work for a while, but then he decided he really, really needed admin rights to do some of the template work he wanted to do, with predictably disastrous results. Since then, he's been oscillated between announcements that he's disillusioned, quitting, etc., and emotional outpourings about the unfairness of RfA, ArbCom, admins, how certain editors are bullies, etc. After an embarrassing attempt to score a point on Fram (talk · contribs), a perennial nemesis (attempted to have some of Fram's articles with attributed PD text deleted as copyvio, refused to listen to people telling him he didn't understand what he was doing), he tried using the Wikibreak Enforcer to quit, but then came back as IPs and then with a new account to keep venting about ArbCom and so on. That led to the current block on the main account.

This long tale of DRAMAZ notwithstanding, I have to say, I have a soft spot for him—he's a good-hearted guy who just can't seem to keep his cool and think through his decisions when he gets worked up. If he'd commit to use one account (no alternates, no IPs) and a topic ban from RfA/ArbCom, where his editing has probably convinced no one and done him a great deal of harm, I'd be inclined to unblock. I think either six months of complete absence from Wikipedia or six months of just tagging and article editing would do a great deal to make him feel better about the place, but he doesn't seem to be able to stick with either. Sad, but what can you do? Choess (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Request at ARE

Hi, I've made a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_IRWolfie- as an interested party, to prevent any bureaucratic hurdles to a future enforcement request. I'd assumed Hgilbert would have been already been warned about pseudoscience/fringe science discretionary sanctions sometime in his past 10 years of editing the topic, but it appears not to be the case. Perhaps, as an aside to whatever is decided (I haven't been involved specifics of the case since I have been on a wiki break, but I have been around for some of the long term behaviour which seems to be out of scope for ARE) an official discretionary sanctions warning can be given? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - I've now issued warnings that meet the requirements of the discretionary sanctions procedures. Sandstein 18:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Sandstein; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your closing at this AfD was quite droll. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Sandstein 18:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Anime Matsuri, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Anime Matsuri" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 23:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hi Sandstein, given that a few procedural issues have recently arisen at AE, I thought I would start a clarification request in order to (hopefully) resolve them all quickly and with a minimum of fuss.[9] Since you are involved, you may want to comment. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Russell Hantz

You closed the deletion review of Russell Hantz as "Recreation allowed", but didn't unprotect the article. Is there any reason for that? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice it was protected. Now remedied. Sandstein 12:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster's continued insinuations

I am troubled by Grandmaster's continued accusations of socking against me and others [10]. He was warned more than once by you and others just recently, as I am sure you remember. Or perhaps he holds immunity from AA2 rules and WP rules in general? Zimmarod (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, he repeated my assessment that "the history of the article gives the impression that sock- or meatpuppetry may be involved". It is indeed peculiar that after you made this edit [11], it was repeated by two other editors ([12], [13]) which had not previously edited the article. Did you contact them about this, or do you know of anyone else contacting them? Sandstein 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing across numerous articles

There are IPs(originating from Ankara) that are disrupting/edit-waring over numerous articles.

The IPs have differing numbers yet when "geolocated" indicate Ankara, Turkey. The IPs involved, so far:

[14]-83.66.212.59
[15]-85.99.78.102
[16]-78.160.83.240
[17]-78.160.194.131
[18]-95.5.28.65

These IPs appear to be socks of User:EMr Kng[19], whose edits mirror the IPs. Can you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I recommend filing a WP:SPI request, where they have experts in IP hopping, as well as checkusers who can determine whether EMr_KnG (talk · contribs) has engaged in sockpuppetry (although they don't associate users to IPs). I'm neither. Sandstein 19:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Please see: 1 2 etc. etc. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem with these two edits and what can I do? Please see WP:GRA. Sandstein 20:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A user banned under ARBAA2 is editing articles he shouldn't. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, blocked. Sandstein 20:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bush Derangement Syndrome close

I was also reading through this, and found your closing and subsequent explanation of your closing to be superb. I would have closed it quite similarly, but wouldn't have explained myself nearly as well as you did. Well done! Keeper | 76 14:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is good to hear positive feedback, especially about AfD closures. Sandstein 18:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Watch" developement

Hi! In the article about Pratchett's The Watch, you added information about Prime Focus taking over the production again, but you've quoted an article from 2011, not 2013. Is it a mistake, or is this a real info?Piotr mil (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are of course right. I don't know why I came to believe that this press release was more recent - I think I read a news report that made the same mistake. I'll correct it. Sandstein 18:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Exopolitics

I'm not sure what to do about User:Arb/Exopolitics and User:Degen Earthfast/Exopolitics. Both are abandoned drafts but the editors are active. These were started by the editors. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Salla (2nd nomination), just started by me, ends with deletion, these can be nominated as well because they have nowhere to go. Sandstein 19:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My IP Ban

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that your response to my block request was predicated on false assumptions. You said "You are not blocked and you seem to be able to edit just fine." In fact, my IP range was blocked (now unblocked by a helpful administrator), and I was unable to "edit just fine." I had to use an alternate IP address to be able to edit, and that's an IP address I don't have available to me on a regular basis or every day. Luckily someone else eventually fixed the issue. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I apparently misunderstood you. I'm glad that somebody else was able to help you out. Sandstein 11:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Draft of discretionary sanctions update

Hi. I have drafted a new set of standard discretionary sanctions (at User talk:AGK/DS) which I intend to propose the committee substitutes for the current formulation. Timotheus Canens and NuclearWarfare have looked over the draft and provided several very useful comments that I've implemented into my draft, but there are a couple of suggestions they made that we are still debating so the draft is not quite completed. However, I thought it would be useful, before I present the draft to my colleagues for debate, for the draft to be given to you and your fellow AE administrators. Do you think that draft would be a satisfactory replacement for everything currently in the grey box at WP:AC/DS#Sanctions? I think a re-formulation of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions will be needed at some point, but we'll take care of that at a slightly later point. I'd be grateful if you could circulate this message around the other AE administrators; I can't confidently state who is a "regular" patroller at AE these days, having been out of the game for a while. Thanks very much for your comments and assistance. AGK [•] 09:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks for the opportunity to offer comments. Do you want to move it to user space, so that we can comment on the talk page? Or where should we comment? Sandstein 09:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The draft is at User talk:AGK/DS, but there is a section underneath the draft (at User talk:AGK/DS#Comments) where comments can be made. Regards, AGK [•] 12:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've informed the other most recently active AE administrators about this message, to the extent they haven't already commented. Sandstein 15:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your name and an earlier Rfc you closed in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Flag and Coat of arms of Western Sahara .2F_SADR. Cheers! Location (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor you blocked sticking his finger up at us

If you miss it at ANI, see [20] where Paul Bedson admits sock puppetry and offers to sock to help another editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That revision is unavailable (oversighted?) At any rate, we should be thankful for giving us notice, it may make the socks easier to detect. The checkuser suggested at ANI is a good idea. Sandstein 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have expected it to be oversighted as he gave contact details. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive. 4 socks blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My edit to Ultimatum

Hi, can you tell me why you undid my edit? In what way is it "too peculiar"? Many interventions for drug addicts involve ultiminatums. 96.48.151.67 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it is a relatively rare situation compared to the others. We can't possibly list every conceivable situation in which ultimata can be issued. Sandstein 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've actually now removed all "mundane" examples as essentially arbitrary. Sandstein 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Rare? Millions of families in North America deal with the effects of substance abuse by their loved ones. In what world does a diplomat threatening to declare war occur more often than a familly threatening to cut ties if their loved one doesn't seek help for their addiction? Yes, we can't list every scenario in which an ultimatum is given, but is having 3 scenarios really too much? Come on. Illneedasaviour (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC) (signed in)

I'm not North American, so I wouldn't know. At any rate, it's a very random example, and articles should be based on reliable sources - the article currently has none. I even doubt whether it's more than a WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 21:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

re: Vikings

Could you tell me why then that the Lars Walker fluff remains in the 'historical accuracy' section, when a Professor of History statement regarding the show is deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.139.10 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please copy this to Talk:Vikings (TV series)? I'll answer there, but that way other contributors can also join the discussion. Sandstein 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

You will be pleased to know my block expired last night. I would be grateful if you could point now me to the articles that have been improved by the block. Rich Farmbrough, 05:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

I don't know - you'd have to ask whoever imposed the restriction you violated. If you think it's counterproductive, you can appeal it. If you don't, or fail to convince that it should be lifted, you'lll have to abide by it. Sandstein 06:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Raise your head, don't enforce stuff you don't understand. "Only following orders..." is a discredited defence. Rich Farmbrough, 08:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

I understand perfectly well that you are subject to a Arbitration Committee restriction. Whether that restriction makes sense is not for me to decide, because I assume that the many elected arbitrators who have examined your issue at length and who have come to a majority decision about it are collectively in a much better position to determine this than I am. That's how our dispute resolution system is set up. If you want to participate in Wikipedia as a collaborative project, you must follow the rules that the community has agreed on, and these include the rule that decisions by the Arbitration Committee are binding until repealed by the Committee. Sandstein 09:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Legalese

Hello,

Regarding your post at ANI, "De jure ban for Paul Bedson" - while I have no comment on the matter itself, I have to say that using legal-sounding Latin phrases isn't very helpful. WP:NOTLAW and all that. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I occasionally lapse into legalese. It's part of my déformation professionelle. (As is French...ese.) Sandstein 15:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ticket #2009110110006857

Hallo Sandstein; Anfragen auf Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard scheinen häufig nicht sehr zeitnah beantwortet zu werden; ich habe mir daher mit dir mal einen deutschsprachigen OTRS-Helfer rausgesucht, da das Ticket vermutlich deutsch sein wird, und möchte fragen, ob du einen Blick darauf werfen kannst - meine Anfrage ist eigentlich relativ einfach: Bestätigt das Ticket eine Freigabe durch den Bildhauer? Meine Frage geht ihrerseits zurück auf eine Anfrage von PaterMcFly auf meiner Diskussionsseite in de-WP, der der Ansicht ist, dass zwei Fotos auf Commons fälschlich gelöscht wurden und dazu schreibt: "Ich war in den Fall involviert und bin eigentlich sicher, dass das so ist, denn Tanja Konsbruck war gemäss eigenen Angaben zusammen mit dem Bildhauer vor Ort und hatte auch sein Einverständnis. Müsste eigentlich so in der Mail stehen." Und ich frage nun hier, weil du in diesem Projekt wohl am aktivsten bist ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I've replied at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Sandstein 18:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Appealings

Howdy Sandstein. Would you transfer my request to the appropiate place? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's better if you do it yourself, by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and making a new request there. Your old one will be closed subsequently. Sandstein 15:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cough

Not unanimous... Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I appear to have misread your statement of "I'm not therefore prepared to assist and endorse the deletion" as meaning "I'm not prepared to endorse the deletion". Perhaps bolding the operative part would have made that clearer. Sandstein 08:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't personally agree that bolding is necessary for a view to count. You are welcome to consider me oldfashioned... Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary to count, but it can help the reviewer to better seize the meaning of an opinion, as in this case. Sandstein 08:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

With respect, if you need bolding it means the closer needs to spend more time reading comments and less time looking to see who voted what. One of my big beefs in wikipedia is the need everyone seems to have to make everything binary when there are generally reasons for a more nuanced view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate your help

Hi Sandstein. You may recall that User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman asked me to restore a deleted article so she/he could view it. Some of the content of the deleted article has been added to Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and I'm not sure how to preserve the attribution.

WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material is confusing me. Is attribution to the deleted article sufficient? I would appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the guideline says "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided". This would seem to mean, to me, that there would have to be a user-visible attribution somewhere, e.g. on the article talk page, that explains who wrote which content. Sandstein 08:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Will do. Apologies for delay - tactile issues due to accessibility keyboard so cant do links very well. Have never consistantly managed on-wiki diffs so I usually do as external links. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your hard work at AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate it! Sandstein 13:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

AE request

Please refer to this. Evidence of long-term cross-wiki and off-project harassment may not be best suited to AE, but I sincerely thought that it should be known that there are issues which are directly (even if not overtly) related to the current request. If these issues are not best dealt with at AE, then would you be amenable to my suggestion at that diff above. That being have the iban breach dealt with at the AE, I strike everything not related to that breach and consider filing a request in future at WP:RFAR to have the larger and longer-terms issues dealt with. You stated that the off-this project diffs are outside the scope of this project's dispute resolution process -- this may hold true for WP:AE, but it does not hold true for Arbcom, who are able to look at off-project harassment, and consider that as part of disputes on this project. This would be a better solution yes?

I would also appreciate it if you could please allow a second or third or fourth set of eyes have a look at the request in question, after you consider the above, and before you act unilaterally on the AE request. The more uninvolved admin eyes that look at an issue, the better.

I know that we have to lessen bullshit on this project, and I simply want to be left alone by editors and get down to the business of what we are here to do. Russavia (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed, with my apologies, what you deem to be unnecessary for this AE request. I am sincere in this, and I sincerely hope you will take this into overall consideration with your comments, but my request for more eyes stands if you don't mind? Russavia (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of parts of your statement is noted and, I think, appropriate. It is up to you whether you want to file a request for arbitration, but as far as I know the Committee normally does not consider off-project conduct to fall within its remit. As to additional admin opinions, I welcome them if they are added soon, but I feel that requests of this sort (reflecting longstanding feuds between groups of editors) should normally be closed as quickly as possible to prevent them from escalating uncontrollably and spawning off ever more sub-disputes. Sandstein 11:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. In relation to Arbcom, they do indeed consider off-project conduct and have a long history of such -- the EEML case itself is one such example; although that clearly had on-project consequences. There are other instances where off-project conduct has resulted in indefinite blocks on this project in the past. In regards to your comments "We will still need to address the violation of Russavia's interaction ban that occurred by him raising these other issues here in the first place." could I ask that you not take any action against myself in this regard. Firstly, it has been a long time since I've had to use AE (for crying out loud, it would be great if we didn't have to require AE in the first place), and I actually was not aware that on-this-project-only diffs were only required. Now I know of course. Also, I took your comments regarding me not providing diffs as an indirect instruction to provide those links, whether they be off-or-on project. This should be taken into consideration, and no action should be taken against myself, except for perhaps a reminder to remember in future only to post overtly relevant diffs to an AE report, and deal with other issues elsewhere, such as at Arbcom. Russavia (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Standard offer

Hi. If you object to my mention of your name in this context on my page, I will remove it. Bishonen | talk 11:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for the notice, I've no objection. Sandstein 12:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Janet Mason

Hi, admittedly because I am not an Admin, I did not have the ability to look at previous versions of this article to see why it was deleted prior to the creation of the most recent version. However I was trying to establish WP:Notability via that the subject is considered a crossover performer with work as a mainstream (non-Adult industry) model and fitness competitor. I referenced IAFd.com because its the Adult industry standard for performer information as well as the subject's Twitter account because she commented directly on her use of her alias for mainstream work and subsequently why she decided to stop using it.

There are other references available to cite regarding her mainstream work, but I honestly thought I'd have more time to add them and expand the article. The deletion process happened so fast, the article was gone before I even knew that it had been nominated.

If you would provide copies of the previous articles and the most recent version, I'm willing to work on creating an article that meets Notability and BLP guidelines, hopefully to your satisfaction. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, userfied at User:Scalhotrod/Janet Mason. Sandstein 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you! In your opinion, what would you say this article needs most? I'd like to think that you provided me access on the basis that you feel there is something of merit in the subject matter, so the benefit of your experience, input, and insight is important to me. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, actually I have no opinion about the merits here, just routinely giving you the opportunity to salvage the article. What it would need is references to substantial coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Right now it doesn't even have any reliable sources, so per WP:BLP I'll have to re-delete it in a week or so if it is not improved. Sandstein 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Is AVN (Adult Video News) considered a WP:RS? I know of sources for her mainstream work, but I have to compile those. I have the same question regarding IAFD.com, its considered the standard reference for the Adult industry similar to how IMDb.com is used. Also, any particular problems with PORNBIO? According to information I've found, she qualifies under all three categories. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these websites, but user-published content such as IMDB is not considered reliable. If there are reliable sources for meeting the topic-specific notability criteria, that would work also, but such determinations are often controversial, so in that case I recommend that you submit the improved article to WP:DRV for review. Sandstein 13:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

IMDb.com is not a user published site. It's a for-profit site that is owned by Amazon.com. Everything is fact checked against known sources by paid staff. Its essentially the same with IAFD.com, anyone can submit a change, but it has to be reviewed before its made live. Unlike WP, user made changes don't "go live" immediately. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is a longstanding consensus among Wikipedia editors that IMDB is not a reliable source because it is user-edited. Sandstein 15:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that opinion is a hold over from when IMDb.com was a private site, but that is no longer the case. Amazon doesn't want to encourage lawsuits any more than any other media source, hence the fact checking by paid staff. The WP article on the site gives an explanation, IMDb.com, but I can understand how the misconception perpetuates. Its like any other source, its great for basic facts and movie/career data, but shouldn't be 100% trusted. For example, I've lost track of how often the Washington Post has been challenged as a WP:RS lately.

Then, of course, there is the overall problem with the increasing digitization of our culture and society especially when it comes to celebrities and other media personalities. Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer print sources for information, reliable, credible, or otherwise. For example, I cited the subject's Twitter account because she spoke about and addressed directly her use of an alias for her mainstream modeling and fitness competitions. I suppose on the next version I'll have to locate the specific series of Tweets and reference those. The subject also talks about it on her blog page. I realize that the use of a blog is a questionable BLP source, but when the subject is talking about herself it is permissible. In fact, in this particular circumstance I can't find ANY print sources for the subject's crossover status, but that doesn't change the fact the her career includes work in the Adult and mainstream industries. It can be a dilemma at times. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough AE case

Community discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Please contact me here only if you want to ask something of me in particular. Sandstein 13:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi Sandstein. Thanks as always for your hard work at AE. This is just to let you know that in the Rich Farmbrough request you wrote, "He obtained the first, two-week block for violating a similar community restriction in November 2013." I am guessing that should be November 2012 instead? I see he was blocked for violating editing restrictions in both November 2011 and November 2012, so it's probably best to be clear about which one it is. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed that. I meant to write 2012. Sandstein 05:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think you closed this prematurely. I had intended to note that I think it is very far from clear that this was done using automation; I find it very easy to mess up the single quotes in just this manner using entirely manual processes. Additionally, in determining the length of the block, you appear to be using the fact that he disagrees with the restriction against him, which doesn't make sense or seem reasonable. I would have written earlier, but I took your first comment there as an appeal to wait (I think now that I misread you). In any case, I think it would be best to leave this open a bit longer for more discussion. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Even if one assumes the first edit I mentioned in the closure was not automated (although the decision directs us to consider automated any edits that reasonably appear as such), there is still the matter of the other two. I also take into account that not even Rich Farmbrough himself made the argument that the edits were not automated.

In determining the length of the block, I didn't take into account Rich Farmbrough's disagreement with the restriction, as such (everyone is free to disagree), but rather the fact that the way how he expressed his disagreement (together with his conduct) indicates that he has no intention of complying with the restriction. It would have been much different, for example, if he had said that he finds the sanction idiotic but will comply with it henceforth. If you still disagree with the block, I recommend that you voice your concerns in the discussion about an appeal, if any, or in the still-open clarification request, where arbitrators can react to it if they share your assessment. Sandstein 05:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The clarification request doesn't seem relevant. I also have a problem with a 1 year block when so little, if any, harm is being done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The length of the block is a reflection on the lack of change since the last block for the same issue, which was ~~one month~~ two months in length and just expired. The question whether harm is being done was already answered by arbcom when they closed the case. It's up to Rich to change his editing accordingly, not up to admins at AE to re-justify the remedies that arbcom has already passed. R.F. appealed the AE case before his previous block, and arbcom did not modify the remedies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Two months actually. Also: Whether the specific edits at issue are harmful or not does not really matter. What matters is that the Arbitration Committee has made a binding decision that any and all automated edits by Rich Farmbrough are prohibited. That's what AE is tasked with enforcing. As concerns the block duration: All blocks should be preventative, not punitive. That's why I think it is not appropriate to consider the harm caused by the specific edits at issue and to set the block duration accordingly - that would be a punitive approach: "the punishment should fit the crime". Rather, the block should last as long as it is needed to prevent the undesired behavior - in this case, automated editing. In this case, Rich Farmbrough has made it clear through his statements and his conduct that he does not intend to comply with the restriction. In principle, therefore, the block should last indefinitely - that is, not infinitely, but until Rich Farmbrough convincingly agrees to abide by the restriction. But the enforcement provision only allows blocks up to a year, so, that's the closest possible approximation. Of course, the block does not need to actually last for the full year: if Rich Farmbrough convinces me that he understands that he must unconditionally observe all of the restrictions that apply to him, and that he intends to do so in the future, I'll unblock him at once. However, given his long history of noncompliance, he'd really have to be quite convincing. Sandstein 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure; I realized this was essentially what you were thinking when you made the block. I disagree, still, that AE should interpret anything arbcom says to mean that we administrators at AE should be blocking anyone for a year when no (or so very little) harm is being done. It isn't the automated editing itself that is harmful/disruptive, and if there is no harm being done here then the 1 year block does not prevent any problems. So in that sense it is neither punitive nor preventative! Carl: I'm somewhat familiar with the original case, and I don't think that the kinds of edits considered here were what was considered so harmful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case, what you disagree with is the underlying decision of the Arbitration Committee to consider all automated editing of whatever nature by Rich Farmbrough to be harmful, and to ban all such editing. That is certainly an opinion that many people seem to share (I am indifferent about the matter), but in that case you should not work in Arbitration Enforcement. Because Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, AE admins in particular have no authority to question the Committee's decisions; they must limit themselves to executing the decisions. Sandstein 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do think it can potentially lead to undesired consequences, although my understanding (like I told Carl I'm only somewhat familiar with the original case) is that it is designed to prevent controversial mass editing by RF's bots/etc, which seems like a reasonable goal. I don't have any problem with the committee responding to disputes about mass editing. But even aside from that, AE admins wouldn't have needed to deviate from Arbitration Committee instructions to avoid giving a 1 year block in this case, since I don't think there's any compelling reason to believe these edits were likely automated. Additionally, the Enforcement By block section says "may be blocked..." which I can't read any other way than to imply that some discretion is given to administrators to not block or to block for a shorter period when, for example, the infraction was so exceedingly minor or when there is no or very little disruption. I did want to respond here to that point you made, but other than that I'm happy to leave this to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests (or any appeal by RF) per your note below. Thanks; ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize what appears to be a simple find-and-replace operation as "automated", as you did here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Find and replace is automation (it produces the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes). It is notably automation in the very broad sense of the restriction, which prohibits "any automation whatsoever". For clarity, the restriction directs Rich Farmbrough "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". Using find and replace is a violation of that instruction. Sandstein 13:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have the same concern as Sarek. There is a search and replace function in the toolbar, so he could easily have hit the edit button and then used search and replace. If there was a pattern of this over any more than one page, sure, but as far as I can see that was not the case. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The restriction is "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". That excludes the use of find and replace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, and you both know it. Search and replace is not automation and your ludicrous definition does not stand scrutiny. If automation were "it produces the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes", then you'd have blocked Rich for signing his posts with 4 ~. If that's the best you can come up with, it's time you took a break from doing work that you're clearly not suited for. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The remedy I quoted did not mention the word "automation" at all, and that was intentional. The question is only whether a reasonable admin could think that R.F. made his edits in a way other than by manually typing them into the edit box. The committee made it clear to R.F. what was expected. R.F. has simply refused to follow the remedies, and instead has tried to stretch the bounds. The solution, as Sandstein has said, is for R.F. to make a convincing case that he would follow the restriction if unblocked - with no boundary-pushing, search-and-replace, etc., just manual editing in the normal sense. However, each time his blocks have expired, R.F. has instead tried to divert blame elsewhere [21], claim his edits are useful [22], and generally avoid taking responsibility for not following the remedies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Now CBM, you and I and many of the others here all know that the way the Arbcom ruling is written it is so open to interpretation that it leaves nearly an unending number of interpretations. None of which in Rich's favor. I would also submit that as long as there is no interaction ban between Fram and Rich, Fram will continue to hound Rich's edits and submit AE threads whenever there is the slightest hint of something Rich can be blocked for. Fram has had a vendetta for Rich for years. Its time for it to stop. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that the wording of the automation ban was probably deliberately wide to stop potential disruption, but it was cast so wide that it makes a mockery of arbcom or anyone trying to enforce it in suc a draconian fashion. Rich is one of the foremost experts of automation here on wikipedia, and instead of setting up the ban to end disruption in addition to making the most use of his talents, you punish him from making even S&Rs. If 'Search and replace' is automation, then so is copy and paste, because by doing so, you by definition "produce the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes". pfff. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that I don't find the claim about search and replace to be technically relevant. Unscintillating (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, please understand I know that off-wiki evidence cannot be admitted into an AE request, but based on a conversation Rich and I had, he all but admitted (I think he may have also admitted outright) violating his topic ban, and he keeps gripping at straws saying that it's okay because it wasn't really automated, just find and replace, oh wait it was automated but they were good edits in good faith, oh wait I know I'm violating my ban but they're good edits so it's okay, etc. I fully support your block, and was just coming to mention that I may be able to discuss this more in private with either the Arbitration Committee if they ask, or possibly you. Thanks for doing the dirty work at AE btw, I've seen nothing but bad about you for just doing hard work. By the way, I know you probably won't care, but you have 2-3 threads about you on WO now, e-mail me for the links if you really care. Thanks again. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the positive feedback. I don't think that anybody needs to rely on hearsay evidence here. What matters under the wording of the remedy is that the edits look like the result of automation; accordingly they are treated as such. ("For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.") Therefore we don't need to hear evidence about how, in detail, the edits were in fact made. Additionally, I think that the fact that Rich Farmbrough has not disputed (as far as I know) that the edits were automated is telling enough. Sandstein 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You can now add a forth editor to the list of those who think this 1 year block is both stupid and short sighted. There is absolutely nothing preventative in blocking a long term editor for what amounts to frivolous edits. Nothing. It's purely punitive and the sooner some level heads realize that the better. Its not bad enough the community has allowed Fram to pursue this unending vendetta. Its too bad that the community continues to allow the sole admin who is the one man show running AE to allow time for comments and always leans towards the extreme end of the spectrum when doling out punishments. Its not enough that we have banned Rich from bots and automated editing costing the pedia tens of thousands of useful edits a month. But we have to add insult to injury and salt to the wound to take a frivolous AE thread from a long involved "admin" and turn it into a 1 year block. For what, a few edits. Absolutely ridiculous. I would also note that Sandstein tried previously to block Rich for a year when he imposed the last frivolous block but only reduced it because it lacked community support even then. It is rarely if ever necessary to impose a 1 year block. Even then it shoudl never be for a violation such as the one Rich is being accused of. A one year block should be reserved for Copyright violators, vandals and the like. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Rich has been banned from automation, I've found it nearly impossible to get any automated task done that I can't do myself. Now he's banned for his edits "looking like" automation. It's a stupid guideline, and I hope some admin that's a bit more level-headed reverts it. Why is it that idiots and vandals are coddled, while the most productive users are punished? — kwami (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your not the only one. A lot of bot ops and potential botops think twice before starting a bot. I have talked with several editors who want too but are afraid if they make mistakes that the zero defect mentality will get them banned. This is a pretty detrimental second level effect to blocking this "troublemaker". KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If the bot operators can't be bothered to either 1) do good software engineering (individually or in collaboration) before releasing a tool, or 2) respond with appropriate humility and ownership of problems when things go wrong, then the project is probably better off without their contributions in the way of automated editing. The entire notion of bot operators as "most productive" is ludicrous--they may make bazillions of tiny changes, but none of them will ever correct errors of fact. The real business of Wikipedia is writing and sourcing articles, and bots can't do that. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence in the comment above rather broad-brushes all non-content editing as 'worthless', but perhaps JC would care to qualify/clarify what he said above. Many WP editors here only do work that does not involve writing text and sourcing the story, and would no doubt be upset to hear a former arbcom member talk in such a dismissive fashion about what they do. IMHO, any respectable news editor will tell you that there's much more to journalism than writing words (the same would apply to publishing). I'm sure JC would be just as disdainful (about his 'newspaper', in the broadest sense) if he found his news articles with no punctuation, full of spelling mistakes, or had no bolded headings or paragraph breaks. In addition to writing text, checking facts, important work also includes removing the irrelevant tangential or unsuitable material; then there's also spell-checking, formatting. Much of the latter is 'automated' to a lesser or greater extent nowadays in Wikipedia and elsewhere. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The primary problem with that argument JClemens is that we aren't talking about bots here. We are talking about a block made purely off of the suggestion that it might be. There isn't a shred of evidence to prove it other than a few links presented by an involved editor/admin that has been pushing for Rich to get blocked for years. I also should point out that few bots do actual edits to articles anymore, a testament to actions like this against Rich that show that editing to articles is dangerous to ones wiki career. Most bots do stuff like maintenance to AFC's, RFA's, count article stats and the like. Very few do anything to articles anymore. There are a couple that do extremely minor things like dating maintenance tags but even that doesn't really improve the article, I count that as falling into paving a cowpath territory. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Working as a gnome in this place, I notice that there are different warlords squatting many different patches. They react strongly when any transversal action (one that crosses over different topic areas), it becomes mighty difficult not to tread on these warlords' turves. You are firmly based on global consensus, they will cite local consensus, and try and scold or intimidate you because 'we always do things this way (and not your way) around here'. Life's becoming increasingly frustrating for that reason. But this is one big digression. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 13:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... let's see... The chutzpah of one editor I've blocked for socking to do "gnomish" work that he was supposed to answer a complaint about before returning to editing questioning my take on the value of similar gnomish work by another is just... words fail me. However, yes, broadly construed, edits that mess with the presentation of information are non-missional: they neither add to knowledge, nor collect it here. To the extent that gnomish or bot work can be done without distracting from the main mission of Wikipedia, it's fine--but that's not to say that it's "valuable" in the same sense that adding a single reference to a pop culture article is valuable. We've had serial problems with editors who don't get that, to one degree or another: you, Rich, Betacommand... Bot owners should not stir up trouble, they should be egoless implementers of the community's will. To the extent that their wide-scale automation is contested by editors in good standing, it should never have been done in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the perspective. So can you explain what part of the edits Rich just did were automated? Or were done from a bot? or that warranted a one year block? I can't and I think most reasonable people can't either. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

May I please ask all of you, if you are interested in discussing this case with each other, to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests? I would like this user talk page to be focused on issues that people wish to discuss with me in particular, and I think that I've said all that I need to about this case. Sandstein 15:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable way to ensure a lot less comments. Only a handful of us watch that page, a couple hundred watch this one. So moving it there essentially scuttles the conversation so that you don't have to talk about it. The problem with that is that it needs to be discussed. It was a bad decision, with an extreme punishment, for frivolous reasons and the editor admin that submitted it is Involved and has been trying to block Rich for years. How else would he notice these edits to a fairly obscure topic within a couple days of Rich being unblocked. Because he was digging for something. Its only made worse because you allowed him to manipulate you into performing the block. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

May I ask a favor, please?

Hi Sandstein. Thanks for your dedication to the project. I would like to ask a favor. Would you consider unhatting the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough to allow for community input. please? Thanks. It's fine if the answer is "no". I'd just like to know if you would consider it. Thanks. To everybody else watching this page, please let's try to be orderly and civil and have a minimum of drama. Thanks. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC) my contribs for those unwilling to WP:AGF.

Hi. Sorry, but AE is not a forum for community discussion; rather, it is an administrative noticeboard dedicated to processing enforcement requests. The place for any associated discussion is the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, where it appears a long discussion is already underway. (Not that I think that it's a particularly useful discussion, though: as an arbitrator mentioned there, the place to discuss any concerns about the decision would be an appeal by the sanctioned editor.) I therefore refrain from unarchiving the enforcement request thread. Regards, Sandstein 15:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the reply. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please cease all activities on the Volunteer Marek AE report

As per this and this, I must insist that you cease all activity on the Volunteer Marek AE report immediately, because you are grossly overstepping your authority as an admin in making decisions of the Arbitration Committee null and void. At this AE report you wrote:

Several people argue that the sanction should not be enforced, or at any rate not with a lengthy block, because the edit was harmless or beneficial. That may well be so. However, in the context of enforcement, all that matters is that edits of this specific type by this specific editor have been determined by the body with the authority to do so – the Arbitration Committee – to be detrimental. That's the point of any ban on Wikipedia: it forbids all edits (or all of a certain type), no matter what the merits of any individual edit are – see WP:BAN. And I trust the collective judgment of the Arbitration Committee in determining the scope of bans like this... well, certainly not blindly, but much more than that of any individual editor who shows up here. So, please address any objections against the scope of the ban, or against the length of the sanctions contemplated, to the Committee members who wrote that ban.

You are in essence objecting to the in-place interaction ban that Volunteer Marek has with myself, and your unilateral decision to null and void that interaction ban is in direct contravention with this amendment request. Furthermore your further contribution to the null and voiding of this interaction ban by stating that ""The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [are interaction-banned]" is no longer valid because the topic ban was lifted, is not only in direct contravention to the abovementioned amendment request, but also defies a basic grasp of the meaning of the EEML interaction ban sanction in the first place. Volunteer Marek (as Radeksz) was clearly sanctioned by name in the EEML case; that he was sanctioned with a topic ban under a separate sanction, and later had the sanction of a topic ban lifted, does not negate the fact that he was still "sanctioned by name".

Volunteer Marek's claim that he was not aware that the topic ban was still in place is entirely dubious. The amendment request was clearly stated as being between Nug and myself; that VM argued for the lifting of the interaction ban as it pertains to all affected editors is entirely his opinion. At no stage did the Committee consider lifting the interaction ban, and I fail to see how one could believe that the interaction ban would no longer apply to them when they were never notified by the committee of the amendment, and it certainly wasn't logged as such. That his belief was that the interaction ban didn't apply to him is BS pure and simple. this demonstrates that another editor with whom there is an interaction ban did not believe my being blocked, etc from this project negated the interaction ban.

Furthermore, there are other issues that I am going to be raising at the clarification request which involve yourself, and which I believe you deserve to be aware of -- I am certain that you don't appreciate being used a tool by other editors. Your opinions will soon change, I am sure! Please wait for me to post the clarification request. Thanks. Russavia (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, whether Volunteer Marek's interaction ban is still active is a matter of the interpretation of the respective remedy. Interpreting remedies is the job of enforcing administrators. One can in good faith favor either interpretation, as arbitrator AGK has also noted. But if I were you, then I wouldn't be arguing so strongly in favor of the interpretation that the interaction ban is still active. Because in that case your own interaction ban would also (clearly) be active, and you arguably violated it by making various clearly unactionable allegations about offproject conduct by Volunteer Marek in your enforcement request. The result would probably be lengthy enforcement blocks for both of you.

As to your announced clarification request, I'm unclear as to what it is to accomplish, and I am not optimistic that it would help with the speedy or satisfactory resolution of this matter. But I must ask that you make any statements that may be relevant to the outcome of the AE request at WP:AE, not here and not elsewhere, because your statements may not be taken into account if they are made off WP:AE. I'll wait until the other admins who have commented about your request have had an opportunity to make additional comments, and then I'll close your request (or any of my colleagues may close it). If by that time you have already submitted a clarification request, I'll instead ask the arbitrators to indicate whether the processing of the AE request should be stayed pending the disposition of your clarification request. Sandstein 19:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am telling you that I am going to be making a clarification request with additional information which even you don't know about, that will essentially do one of two things -- 1) I will be indeffed from this project entirely or 2) there will be some serious changes on this project. But in relation to your interpretation of remedies, I am now demanding that you cease with this case as of now. I have asked for 24 hours -- in order for me to place the information at both the request and with Arbcom. It affects both areas simultaneously. And by the way, I know you are a lawyer and you like to be officious and hard-arsed on editors, but perhaps for once instead of treating AE as your own personal legal playground where you essentially singularly act as a virtual judge, jury and executioner, and pretend like this project is all about legal laws and doctrines (rather than common bloody sense) you might ask how exactly you (and AE in general) are being used a mere tool. So perhaps just give me the space to either hang the noose around my own neck, or simply read what I will have to say. Thank you. Russavia (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I decline to wait 24 hours, because what you write about your announced clarification request makes me suspect that it will consist of more unverifiable and/or unactionable allegations of offwiki misconduct by others, which would very likely only make this already dismal case even more acrimonious and complicated. So – please don't do that. My job, as I understand it, is to execute the decisions of the Arbitration Committee, not to help editors commit "suicide by drama". Also, if what you want to say is relevant to the outcome of the AE request, then you should say it now, at WP:AE, or in an appeal against any sanction after the request is closed. If what you want to say is not relevant to the outcome of the AE request, then you could have said it at any time previously, and there is no particular reason for me to wait for you to say it now. Sandstein 20:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Followup

Since you enacted the IBAN Russavia has violated it twice that I can see on his talk page. You posted notification at 07:20, 28 March 2013. [quote redacted] posted at 09:34, 28 March 2013 & [quote redacted] posted at 10:30, 28 March 2013. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I just recalled that VM has complained not so long ago over use of his RL name being used so have removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please submit a request at WP:AE if you think that this warrants enforcement action. Considering that Russavia's potentially sanctionable statements were made in the context of strongly criticizing my enforcement actions, I would prefer it if another administrator were to address that request. Sandstein 13:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've redacted and revdeleted the above quotes because of potential privacy issues etc; I don't need this kind of material on my talk page. Next time please use diffs. Sandstein 13:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just to let you know I filed AE as you suggested, except somebody removed it. Now it is back again, but who knows for how long. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.211.113.93 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about my status

Given the recent events, I am confused whether I am under any continuing restrictions (in particular, an interaction ban), due to this old case I was a party to. For my reference, would you be so kind and let me know if I am (or am not)? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can tell, because you are (still) an "editor sanctioned by name" in this case. Sandstein 05:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Veljko Batrović

Hi as you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veljko Batrović a year ago I thought you should know that I've just declined a G4 on Veljko Batrović and restored the pre AFD edits. Not only is the new article substantially different, but it looks like his career has moved him into our notability zone since the last AFD, with 7 rather than zero top flight appearances. In my view he has gone from a clear delete when you closed the last AFd to a clear keep this time. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the notice. I've no opinion on the merits as I have an extreme non-interest in organized sports. Sandstein 19:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE

Just a notification — in response to your comment on my request for enforcement of the Doncram case, I've added what I hope you were asking me to add. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)