User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/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.

Asia Nexgen page was deleted

Hi Sandstein,

Thank you for editing the page Asia_Nexgen. I am Patrick and I contribute mainly to the article of Asia_Nexgen.

I have found as many as possible resources to support my writing about Asia_Nexgen but it was still deleted. I would like to know what is the reason.

I am happy to send you more information and other articles if you might need it. Please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you Patrick Li — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.197.253.194 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

huh?

The AfD discussion on List of film accents considered the worst was moving towards overturn and delete, and we were not re-arguing the AfD b/c the admin who kept the list did not take into account the arguments about the impossibility of such a list representing a consensus. You just opened the floodgates to endless "X considered the worst" lists. Good job.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

How does this concern me? Sandstein 21:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested for consensus

Please comment over at Draft talk:Abby Martin#Requested move 04 March 2014. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks, I have no particular interest in this topic. Sandstein 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, but for the sake of neutrality, I tried to contact everyone who participated in the last AfD, both for and against. If you decide to change your mind, your opinion will be valued. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Schlossberg

Thanks for your thoughtful close. Your solution (relisting) seems like the right course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

your opinion please...

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green. You argued Green was an instance of {{blp1e}}. I reviewed that AFD today, and still disagreed with your closure. I agreed with those who asserted the notoriety of Green's crime made him one of the archetypical individuals who merited a standalone article, because they had become the poster child for their particular kind of crime.

I thought if I did a google news search I would find various references to him, post trial, that used him as an example, and I thought those would provide arguments to restore his article to standalone status.

What I found is that he died, apparently of suicide, a few weeks ago. Your deletion explanation was solely based on {{blp1e}}, so, now that he is dead, do you agree BLP no longer justifies not having a standalone article on this individual?

What do you think should happen next? Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if WP:BLP1E no longer applies, WP:BIO1E does. So unless there's now coverage about him that is unrelated to the one incident that made him notable, I don't think anything has changed. Sandstein 18:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. But, unless I am reading it wrong, WP:BIO1E doesn't bar creating standalone articles on individuals mainly known for one event. Doesn't BIO1E offer guidance as to when a single event is or isn't significant enough for an individual to merit a standalone article?

I am not going to assume you are interested in having me offer reasons why I think we should have a standalone article on Green.

The choices open to me, as I see them, are:

Offer reasons to you as to why Green merits a standalone article, and get you onside, prior to restoration;
Offer reasons as to why Green merits a standalone article at DRV;
Prepare a draft, ask for a couple of opinions, and restore an updated version to article space, without further consultation with you or at DRV, and argue, if challenged, that the updating meant that the new version was different enough it did not qualify for speedy deletion as a simple recreation of a deleted article.
Restore the Green article to article space, without asking for any other opinions, and if challenged, argue BLP1E, the reason offered by the closing administrator no longer applied.

In contrast to the counter-policy criticisms of my judgment, character, and good faith pretty regularly applied to me by my challengers, my record shows I do comply with consensus, and bend over backwards to learn why those who disagree with me do disagree with me. So I include that last option solely for completeness.

Did I leave an option out?

Do you have any interest in offering guidance as to how different an updated article would have to be for reasonable people to recognize it did not qualify for speedy deletion as the recreation of a deleted article? Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you covered all options. To escape speedy deletion, the new article should be substantially different from the old in terms of the reasons for deletion, i.e., the one-event topic matter of the sources. Sandstein 19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steven Dale Green. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Geo Swan (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

John Schlossberg

Hi, would it be possible to restore the talk page? It had the history of previous AfD/DRV. I'll add the most recent DRV to the "multi afd" template once restored. -- GreenC 04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. Sandstein 08:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

INVEA-TECH

Hello, you were involved in an AfD discussion back in 2011. I was patrolling new pages and noticed the page has been recreated, I'm not sure how to compare the two to see if they're significantly different. It still appears to lack notability in my opinion. Would you mind helping out? Thanks! Chris Moore (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, many of the references are new. No idea if they are enough for notability, but this would need a new AfD if not. Sandstein 20:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Subang Air Traffic Control Centre

Hello, I saw that you had recently deleted the "Subang Air Traffic Control Centre" page for lack of significance. Would it be possible to do the same for Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center? I am a relatively new user and not sure how to go about this. Thanks! Kage Acheron (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, done. Sandstein 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again! Kage Acheron (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ganesh J. Acharya comment

Hi Sandstein, while the Ganesh J. Acharya discussion was still open, I started writing a lengthy response to his paranoid invocation of my name. When I clicked submit, I discovered that the case had been closed in that time. Hope that doesn't cause any problems. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Sandstein 18:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How to

I honestly think it's time to lift Brew's topic ban on physics. He wasn't editing physics articles/talk pages any differently than he's editing philosophy so if his editing is tolerated for philosophy articles, why not physics? How could I (should I?) go about suggesting a review?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the merits, but procedurally, the only way to lift the topic ban is to appeal it to ArbCom. That must be done by Brews ohare himself, not by anybody else. Sandstein 09:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent well that's easy, then if there's nothing standing in his way, I should suggest it to User:Brews ohare. Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page usage

Just a heads-up. You blocked User:Ganesh J. Acharya yesterday. I realise that they may be upset etc and some allowance needs to be made for that. However, their edits to User talk:Ganesh J. Acharya since that time are becoming another example of their tendency towards statements of bad faith and of seeing Wikipedia as a place to right great wrongs. I will only inflame the situation if I comment there but I wonder how much more rope they should be given. Their concerns about inter-caste violence are based on real events - such violence is commonplace in India - but their continued suggestions that Wikipedia, its systems and its contributors are somehow in part responsible for fomenting it are misplaced, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, normally people in this situation get bored eventually and go away. If not, we can remove talk page access later. Sandstein 18:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, usually. But this person has not got bored of their campaign in five years here, so I'm not hopeful! - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:Re:Reconsider

Sandstain, I don't understand what link are you asking for? Be precise what link should I present. Jaqeli (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A previous discussion? Please link to it, see WP:GRA. Thanks, Sandstein 11:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Jaqeli is continuing this discussion D P 12:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, previus discussion what DangerousPanda just posted above. What link do you want explain. Jaqeli (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In that discussion you were asked to point to the PREVIOUS discussion where your topic ban was discussed. It seems to be a habit of yours to be unable to provide links to discussions when requested - doesn't bode well D P 12:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Just so. Sandstein 12:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean this link? Jaqeli (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So, it was implemented in January. You violated it in January. Editors need to spend a minimum of 6 months editing positively, showing a) a good quantity of positive contributions outside of the topic ban area, and b) positive interactions with others. It's barely 2 months since the topic ban was enacted ... seriously D P 13:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And what does that mean? Jaqeli (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It means you shouldn't request lessening of the restrictions for at least 4 more months, and when you DO, you need to a) have a squeaky clean record of behaviour for the previous 6 months (prove it) and a positive contribution history (and prove it too) D P 13:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Game of Thrones

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Game of Thrones you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Two articles

Can you undelete Subang Air Traffic Control Centre and Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center? They're both regional control centers and are not unnotable organizations at all. Additionally, they have few sources, because they operate in countries where English is not the primary language, but they are listed on this page, indicating that it is a regional control center. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, they may well be notable, I wouldn't know. I deleted them because the notability wasn't apparent from the article. And by notability I mean, of course, coverage in reliable sources that can serve as the basis of article content (see WP:GNG). The website you link to just mentions the center's existence. Do you have other references to sources that could establish notability? Sandstein 13:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your insinuation at ANI

I'm extremely unhappy at your insinuation that I had acted in a manner as to stifle a valid expression of opinion. If you were to apply your standards consistently – which I sincerely believe that you do try your best – would you not have issued a warning for this? Instead of insinuating that my collapsing of that thread was somehow trying to hide legitimate criticism, would you not acknowledge that the above was a perfect example of baiting and trolling that is not conducive to a health discussion? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the context. In the context of WP:ARBATC, the Committee explicitly forbade personalizing disputes. Were this a comment in a Manual of Style-related dispute, a warning about WP:AC/DS might therefore be appropriate. However, in the context of WP:ANI conduct disputes, this is certainly a trenchant expression of a point of view, but it does not rise to the level of a WP:NPA violation (in my perhaps biased view, because I agree with the sentiments expressed there). There are other comments in that ANI thread that are, in my view, rather more problematic, such as those alleging bad faith, bullying, etc. on my part.

I am of the view that you acted inappropriately by hiding a comment that is critical of your position. You should have let an uninvolved administrator do that, if it was needed. Sandstein 11:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"a trenchant expression of a point of view" You humour me. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

TBAN appeal

Hi Sandstein,

I would like to return to editing and appeal this TBAN as suggested in your notice. I realize that my main problem was not really editing in the area of pseudoscience, but WP:COI concern. Therefore, I promise the following to avoid such problems in the future:

I will never revert edits by other users in the situation when there is a content dispute, and others can reasonably believe that I have a conflict of interest. That was indeed my problem while editing article Herbert E. Ives. Please note that it was my first lapse of judgement of this nature, although I edited a lot of scientific subjects before, where a similar situation could arise.
If a dispute/discussion arises, I will ask and check myself for alternative RS, other than this book (Nonpostulated relativity). This is something I actually tried to do [1].
I will avoid prolonged non-productive discussions related to this book or any other subjects where I might be personally involved by leaving editing and discussion to others.

Please note that I had only one previous discussion related to this book many years ago. Nothing in my editing during all these years, beyond this single episode, indicates that I tried to promote this book or this author.

I think an additional problem on my part was my poor judgement. Therefore,

I will avoid non-productive discussions in general by leaving pages to others (unfortunately, I do not have time for prolonged dispute resolution), and
I will not bring to WP:AE any matters where I am currently (or recently) involved without consulting with an uninvolved administrator.

If I tried a formal WP:AE appeal, I would also emphasize the point that I simply never edited in the area of pseudoscience. There was a user who commented about me on your and other pages [2]. I have no idea who they are, but I agree with their comments and must assume good faith on their part.

So, what do you think? I can elaborate some points if you wish.

Sorry for the trouble, My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This appeal is certainly worth examining. You are banned from everything related to the writer and scientist Lev Lomize. Could you please describe which edits, if any, you intend to make relating to Lev Lomize if this ban is lifted? Sandstein 09:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I have absolutely no intention editing anything directly about him. For example, I am not going to create a BLP page about him or any pages about this book or other works. And I never tried this before. In the event such pages are created by someone else, I would refrain from editing them directly and might only make comments on their talk pages (in line with WP:COI). However, I will probably edit subjects of mainstream Physics, including special relativity, and I would like to keep open the possibility to use this book (Russian edition) as a source/reference. This is because I am familiar with the book. This books covers not only special relativity, but classical electrodynamics - at the level of introductory textbook. This assumes the book will be treated exactly as any other source, in compliance with WP:COI. If, for example, it will be decided on RS or other appropriate noticeboards that the book is not a reliable source for making certain claims, I will comply per WP:Consensus. And I never tried to insert references to this book in multiple articles, as would be done by anyone who is actually trying to promote a book. Now, speaking about Herbert Ives article, I still believe this book would be an appropriate secondary source to justify certain claims, which are currently made specifically in this page, however, I will not revert edits by other contributors related to the book (as stated above), and I would rather not edit this page at all for the near future.My very best wishes (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that it would be a good idea to use, in general physics articles, a translation of an older Russian/Soviet physics textbook, especially by somebody who seems to be associated in the English-speaking world with non-mainstream ideas and has no publication history, rather than, say an up-to-date textbook by an established university press? Sandstein 15:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is simply a matter of convenience for me. Yes, I prefer using Russian books because I studied Physics using these books, just as I am using Russian sources in other subject areas. I believe having such diversity is beneficial for the project. At the same time, yes, I agree not use this book in general physics articles if there are other sources available to support a claim, per #2 above. Yes, such alternative sources will be usually or always available if needed. However, speaking about mainstream Russian physics books/textbooks in general (and I believe this is one of them), they frequently provide a different approach to teaching and interpreting Physics than commonly used US textbooks, for example. Therefore, their use in general would be actually a good idea to comply with WP:NPOV and improve articles. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, talking even more informally, let me tell the following:

Having a TBAN makes me extremely uncomfortable and significantly less willing to participate in the project, as you can see from my self-imposed two-month block.
I am taking this very seriously and will make every effort not to be in this situation ever again, as you can see from my self-imposed two-month block.
Looking at my editing history during all these years, there is no any indication that I am a COI-driven editor bent on promoting this book or this author. One could make a much stronger case that I promoted Black Book of Communism, Mitrokhin Archive, or Pfam around here.
I never edited in the area of pseudoscience at all. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Although I still have misgivings about you wanting to cite this particular book so much that you abstain from editing Wikipedia altogether while you are banned from doing so, I recognize that the determination of what an appropriate reliable source is is too close to a content issue for me to be comfortable to maintain the ban on that basis alone. The ban is lifted, in the expectation that the conflict that led up to it will not reoccur. Sandstein 11:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! My frustration was mostly caused by my opinion that TBAN was unjust. In addition, I also had (and still have) some work to do, and this break helped me to control my addiction to wikiediting. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If I really wanted to cite this book a lot, I would do it long time ago. This book can be used per rules in multiple articles, just as any other RS. I did not do it for two reasons: (a) the potential COI concern, and (b) I avoided editing in the area of general Physics because of the atrocious editing atmosphere out there. Yes, I think only ARBPIA is worse. This is happening because certain editors of Physics want everything be described exactly as in their favorite textbook, which goes against WP:NPOV, but trying to convince them is very difficult. What I really worry about is this taking place very recently, because I know what it means. Best, My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is improper use of article talk page, however I would rather avoid editing or discussing this page. This is also perfect example why I edited very little in the area of general Physics. I edited a lot in Eastern Europe area, but I can not remember a single case when a non-administrator placed a TBAN notice about their content "opponent" on article talk page and restored this notice even when TBAN was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your incorrect statements on my talk page: Urartu TH

As was decided by Penwhale on the AE page [3], "Urartu TH (talk · contribs) blocked by Sandstein for WP:NPA/WP:AGF issues separate from original request which was not actionable." But on my talk page you had written, "To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violations of the principles outlined in WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS in your statement to WP:AE...". This is clearly a contradiction and erroneous.

I would like to know if this was simply a mistake on your part or whether your decision was overruled. In any case, let's reiterate that I did not violate the Arbitration Decision regarding the Khojaly tragedy article at "Talk:Khojaly Massacre#Number_of_civilians_affected".

I also would encourage you to take a closer look at the arbitration enforcement talk, which is deemed not actionable, [4] to see that I did in fact give evidence for Grandmaster's behavior: "One need only read the DRN or the Khojaly tragedy talk page for examples" and "The second edit, March 15, 2014, was not even discussed in the DRN and I am truly perplexed as to how Grandmaster could attempt to "enforce" a DRN's conclusion on a topic that was not at all discussed."

If such evidence was not specific enough as to pinpoint my concerns, then that should have been noted instead of simply claiming that I have no evidence. I would appreciate it if you changed your statement on my talk page to reflect the actual decision of the AE action.--Urartu TH (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this confused you, but my block was an enforcement of the arbitration decision in the sense that the decision authorized administrators to block editors who violate Wikipedia conduct rules, as you did in your response to the enforcement request. I don't think that anything needs to be changed. Sandstein 16:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This logic is convoluted and general nonsense. The arbitration decision involved a disagreement about content in the Khojaly tragedy article. It did not involve a statement I had not yet made, during the non-actionable enforcement request. Therefore I did not violate the arbitration decision. The wording on my talk page clearly states that I violated the arbitration decision where you said the following: "To enforce an arbitration decision". You were not enforcing anything via the block, but rather making a unilateral decision to disregard evidence I pointed to and block me for accusatory language. I hope that makes my concern clearer.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The arbitration decision I was enforcing is the one found at WP:ARBAA2, which provides that: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." Discretionary sanctions, in turn, authorize blocks for general misconduct related to the topic area. You were previously warned about this on your talk page. Sandstein 21:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's up to you whether or not my concerns regarding Grandmaster's statements towards me rise to the level of sanctions for NPA, but this does not violate the arbiration decision and I'd simply like you to remove those few words from my talk page.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please have a look at this edit: [5] Is it Ok to label edits by other editors as vandalism, especially considering that very recently Urartu TH was blocked for the violation of WP:NPA? Grandmaster 16:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said anyone was a vandal. Certainly not. But the edit in question was uncalled for and without good faith. Also, please mind WP:HOUND.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

ARCA

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation NE Ent 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolution, if you're amenable

I note that NE Ent has put back their version of the ARBATC log, with their own discretionary sanctions notices logged there (except with regard to Neotarf), instead of your old ones, the ones that had the accusations embedded in them. That simple change (unless reverted) actually moots the longstanding dispute I've had with you, from my point of view, and thus also obviates my need to file an ArbCom case or make any further attempts at resolving this. This seems to me that it should work for you, since it implies no error or wrongdoing on your part, it simply replaces notices that had old, objectionable-to-some wording with ones that don't, and obviates your concern that simple removal of your notice logging would somehow change enforceability of sanctions in any way – the same parties are still notified of the same sanctions. It works for me, coupled with the changes to the wording at that page more generally ("warning" -> "notice", and the new intro note at that section that being listed there is not proof of wrongdoing); my issue has always been the defamatory false accusation, not the fact of being notified of something. It doesn't resolve the problem that you've been issuing some ARBATC notices without logging them, but that doesn't directly concern me very much. It doesn't address what you know that I and some others see as an INVOLVED and pointlessly punitive topic ban against me last March, but as I was too busy offline to get around to appealing it before it expired, I don't see any point in continued protest about that. I haven't decided whether I'll return to regular content editing or stay resigned/retired; your actions against me, and the failure of ArbCom and the admin community more broadly to deal with the matter – for an entire year, no matter how many times and how clearly the matter was raised, how simple the solution was – have shaken my faith in this entire project, deeply. But I think this dispute at least can be resolved right now with a simple verbal agreement that NE Ent's version sticks and there isn't anything else to resolve. Deal?

PS: ~~Sorry about~~ I was slightly inaccurate in mistaking you for having reverted NE Ent's change, earlier. Actually, you had someone else do it for you.[6] I was looking at the wrong diffs and saw that previously you'd reverted someone else's change that removed Neotarf's entry from the log entirely, like a month ago.

PPS: Neotarf (perhaps confused as to the intent or effect?) objected to NE Ent's change, and NE Ent thus reverted their Neotarf notice in the ARBATC log back to your version, which is surely worse from Neotarf's perspective; I would advise partial-reverting back to NE Ent's version of the Neotarf notice, or this may well turn into an RFARB psychodrama after all, since Neotarf remains unsatisfied that the issue has been resolved. Neotarf may not be entirely happy with NE Ent's version, but there would be no false accusation latent in it, thus (I think) no further grounds for a dispute. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is now the subject of an umpteenth request to the Arbitration Committee, so I refer to my comments made at WP:ARCA. Sandstein 11:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't pass the buck; this continued escalation is directly your fault. All you have to do is stop fighting. There is absolutely no rational reason to keep this up. Wikipedia is not a lawsuit, and you are not WP:WINNING it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland)

Hello, I'd like to request oversight on the page, due to an ongoing neutrality dispute over the length of the Controversies section. We just had a dispute resolution discussion end with the removal of questionable material added by user Faustian, with the moderator user TransporterMannoting noting that the length and the content of the section was indeed questionable. Now, user Faustian is trying to add more undiscussed text. As a senior admin, please if at all possible ensure that the section does not have more questionable material added, especially because this argument will have to return to dispute resolution board for a second time. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see: [7]. User:COD T 3 is basically just removing referenced info whenever it is added, without consensus. One does not need his permission, to add information. The trimming conducted by User:TransporterMan was done with consensus. Faustian (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The text has not been discussed, and Faustian is engaging in edit warring by continually re-adding the questionable material. Not following the edit rules; after a revert you do not continue to re-insert the questionable text without building a consensus. Also, the dispute resolution board had to be closed prematurely and not fully resolved due to user Faustian conveniently removing himself from further discussion, thus sabotaging the process of open discussion. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing questionable about the material. It is from a reliable source, Carole Fink. (2006).Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, and International Minority Protection, 1878-1938. Cambridge University Press, and directly relevant to the topic. The "edit warring" consists of COD T repeatedly removing referenced info that he does not like. He should stop being disruptive. One doesn't need to clear any piece of sourced information with COD T 3 prior to adding it to an article. "Lack of consensus" is not one disruptive editor seeking to remove information. He has already been warned by two admins for his negative behavior: User talk:COD T 3.Faustian (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Faustian you can bring up that point in the second dispute resolution case, that I'll resubmit. In the mean time since the length of the section was never resolved due to your lack of participation in the discussion. I would recommend that you do not add more material to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COD T 3 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And I am skiing this weekend, so I will not be able to participate until Tuesday. Your threat to block additional information is noted.Faustian (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine I will wait until Monday evening to submit the case. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This request lacks required information to be actionable - notably relevant links, see WP:GRA. Also, admins can only act on conduct problems, not on disagreements about content. You should include diffs of allegedly problematic conduct and explain why the diff violates any conduct policy or guideline. Sandstein 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The objectionable conduct is that COD T 3 is simply repeatedly removing any referenced information he doesn't like because it mentions anti-Jewish crimes committed by Haller's army: [8], [9], [10], [11].Faustian (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and after you reverted my changes back, I will take that argument to the dispute resolution page. It's called documentation… that I made my changes clear, and you stated your opposition, now it will be resolved in the dispute board. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your "changes" consist of blanking info you don't like.Faustian (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because the entire length of the section was put into question by the dispute mediator, and you ran away without finishing the discussion. So, I continued my case on the article's Talk Page. --COD T 3 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The section was shortened considerably. Removing referenced info you don't like is not a solution.Faustian (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And there were more issues that I raised, but the mediator was forced to close the discussion due to your non-participation. So, the problems in the section are far form resolved. --COD T 3 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(outdent). Look, he just reverted again, removing more sourced information: [12].Faustian (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked you both for edit-warring. Once the blocks expire, please settle your content dispute non-confrontationally as described at WP:DR. Sandstein 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification

The clarification request involving you has been archived. The original comments made by the arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Christie RfC closure

Thanks for taking the time to close the discussion in the RfC at Chris Christie. I realize that there are plenty of much more interesting and entertaining ways to pass one's time than by reading through topics like this. However, there is a problem with the way you worded your closure. You wrote, "Consensus is that the bridge lane closure political scandal should be covered in the article, but it's not clear from this this discussion to which extent it should be covered. (I note that there is currently an extensive section about it, Chris Christie#George Washington Bridge scandal.)" The problem is that you neglected to mention the issue of whether the article should mention actions taken by aides and appointees (ie, actions not necessarily taken by Christie himself). There shouldn't be any question that that was the central question of the RfC, given the title of the RfC on the Talk page ("RfC: Is information about the actions of Christie administration officials appropriate for the article?"), the question posed in opening the RfC ("Should the article include information about actions taken by Christie administration officials, such as their involvement in the George Washington Bridge lanes closure and in the distribution of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds?"), and the instructions given to respondents for how to participate in the RfC ("Please begin your comment with Support or Oppose [meaning whether you support or oppose including information about Christie administration officials in the article], followed by your reasoning.") Dezastru (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I noted, the RfC seemed to me to focus mainly on whether the scandal should be covered, and there was little or no discussion about Christie's aides or officials specifically. Sandstein 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that the issue of whether to include material involving Christie's aides or appointees was not specifically addressed in the discussion:

Neutron: "The fact that much of this content concerns the actions of the governor's staff members does not mean that this material must be excluded from the article."

Scholarlyarticles: "It seems remiss to exclude the hefty body of information about the way he conducted his administration (or, if you take his view, the way his administration conducted him) as well to exclude the complaints/allegations/stories about his strong-arm technics. In my view, this article should certainly touch on the GWB scandal, the Hoboken scandal, both of which are subjects of federal investigations, and for which the governors' office has been subpoenaed." (emphasis added)

Vanamonde93: "For a high ranking politician it is unreasonable to use BLP to exclude anything that does not directly mention them."

Dezastru: "Common practice on Wikipedia is to include mentions of major controversies affecting political leaders in their bio articles even in cases in which the leaders themselves have not necessarily been found to have been directly responsible for controversial actions taken by their subordinates or associates."

Cwobeel: "Per Dezastru, couldn't put it better myself: 'The investigations into the controversies involving his administration's role in the bridge lanes closure and the Hurricane Sandy recovery response are unquestionably among the most noteworthy events of his political career.'" (emphasis added)

Dissenting participants also directly mentioned the issue of Christie's staff or appointees being included. Keithbob, for example, wrote, "Oppose the inclusion of information about Christie's staff or appointees in the article, with the exception of information directly describing statements or actions taken by Christie himself." Dezastru (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a current, practical concern? It seems to me that if there is disagreement about to which extent the article should describe the actions of subordinates, you could as well point contestants to this summary as a basis for further dicussion. Sandstein 22:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Game of Thrones

The article Game of Thrones you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Game of Thrones for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't even have words

Re: Kosovo. Thank you. This is a big deal to lots of people. Thank you. Red Slash 22:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but what matters is consensus based on Wikipedia naming policy, not people's feelings... Sandstein 17:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Well done. I wish more RM closers would have the balls to follow policy instead of going by the direction the !vote wind happens to be blowing. This decision made my Great RM Decisions list on my page. --B2C 17:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I was very scared that a very emotion-laden issue that triggered a fair bit of meatpuppeting would see the understandable emotion of the Serbians defeat logic and WP policy and (for what it's worth) human decency. Not every day do the right actual decision and the right Wiki-decision coincide. Thank you for seeing that they did here. Red Slash 23:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This and that...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For this right here. Simple as that. Stalwart111 07:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Sandstein 16:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Porn Studies

Hi Sandstein, First off, thank you for the creation of this article. Second, RandyKitty has set me straight and pointed me to the correct resources for how an article of this type should be constructed and edited. After a quick review of them, I understand and can appreciate your reversions. My apologies for "mucking up" the article you created. It was never my intention to reduce its quality, but simply to expand it. I look forward to working with you in the future. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Sandstein 16:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome... :) Granted, its a new journal and has yet to demonstrate its efficacy, but I will do my part to contribute where appropriate within the guidelines of the Journal project. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

deletion of a page

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 20:05, 11 January 2014 Sandstein (talk | contribs) deleted page Hy Mayerson (Deleting redirects to "Mayerson Law" after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayerson Law)

Hello, I am not a WIKI editor. Hopefully we can discuss why my page was deleted. I still practice law. I believe that my litigation history has been outstanding, and therefore noteworthy, as the article indicates.

Please advise why you thought deletion was a necessary action or a correct action

Thank you for your courtesies. H yRedkruzer (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. In a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayerson Law, the community of Wikipedia editors decided that the article Mayerson Law fails to meet the inclusion criteria described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Please refer to that page for more information. Sandstein 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have read the community discussion. Please forward me, or publish hereat, the deleted Wikipedia page with footnotes. Thank you Hy Redkruzer (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Redkruzer (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've pasted it to http://pastebin.com/ZZpsfpVZ. Please make sure to download it from there, because it will expire in 6 days. Sandstein 17:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, That URL states the post has been removed. HyRedkruzer (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It is now visible. I have copied it. Hy Redkruzer (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, I asked for footnotes too. Please provide the footnotes.HyRedkruzer (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears in a different format than the page had on Wikepedia. It is harder to understand this way. But I now have seen most of the footnotes I was looking for. I imagine they are all there. Thank you for your co-operation on this post deletion issue.Redkruzer (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Redkruzer (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Submitted by Hy Mayerson [Long promotional text suppressed]] You are free to use the updated citations supplied. I can add to it as you may wish. Please, Time is of the essence. HyRedkruzer (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant to advise you that Ronald Coderio, M.D. turned out to be the plaintiff's lead expert. Redkruzer (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you are not allowed to misuse Wikipedia to advertise your law firm. Please use other outlets for this. Please do not post long stuff like this to my talk page again. Sandstein 04:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, based on your reasoning, perhaps you need to delete many law firms, medical practices etc...Not to mention so many major corporations.

I believe that some of the wiki editors committed liable. I was/am willing to overlook that if the record is set straight.

Your censorship and removal of the proof I offered I believe is censorship at a poor/bad level. Please re-instate the proof I offered. HyRedkruzer (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Redkruzer (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(butting in) I have a hard time believing that an actual lawyer can misspell "libel", but this project does have a policy against legal threats. May be wise to reconsider this avenue of attack. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, Sorry for being human. Your focus is off center. Understood what you perceive as a "legal threats ...attack" HyRedkruzer (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" is a correct path.Redkruzer (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Plus, as a private entity, we may censor whoever we want, and we choose to censor self-promotional efforts by non-notable people. Request denied. If you would like to appeal this, see WP:DRV. Sandstein 16:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have posted the material you censored, because I believe you did not wish others to see how wrong you deletion is and was. See : Mayerson.com or more directly

http://Mayersonlaw.com/html/about.htmlRedkruzer (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Redkruzer (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Vaughan

I'm mystified as to where you think WP:BLP says what you claim it does. There is no "mandatory deletion" for unsourced BLPs. There is nothing contentious in the article. Nothing is attacking the individual. Since there was clearly no consensus for deletion, you really need to reopen this debate and restore the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is. "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." By being nominated for deletion, the material has become contentious, and as it is unsourced, BLP mandates its deletion. I won't reopen the discussion, but you can recreate the article if you have reliable sources. Sandstein 16:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I fear you are misinterpreting the world "contentious". Since he was in a TV programme, and TV programmes and films are sources in their own right (not only print media is valid as a source, after all), there is no contentious material whatsoever, since nobody is disputing he did appear in the show. BLP most certainly does not mandate its deletion. It does not actually mandate deletion of an entire article at all - merely the removal of contentious material. A common misinterpretation, sadly, but a misinterpretation nonetheless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Somebody wants to delete the whole article, which makes it contentious in its entirety. BLP articles without (reliable) sources must not exist, which is why we have WP:BLPPROD. Sandstein 11:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing "contentious" with "non-notable". They are not the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Matthew Vaughan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matthew Vaughan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Super-team

User talk:Gaijin42 ‎ harassed me and I will continue to file forms until there is resolution . . . my good faith edits did not deserve any of the accusations he hurled at me with multiple template . . . such aggression is not acceptible.Stmullin (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong attitude. Please read WP:DR, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA. Sandstein 05:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Appealing my topic ban

Dear Sir, I have appealed my topic ban here: [13]. I have not repeated any mistake/s after my first AE request was closed (I have not edit warred, introduced any original research or used a source which does not support the statement, after the reversion by Darkness Shines, who I feel should have told/discussed things with me either on my Talk page or the article's Talk page before asking for AE). Darkness Shines, the person/editor who filed the AE against me, himself has been warned about his behaviour here: [14] and here: [15]. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm retracting my appeal based on admin DP's suggestion here: [16]—Khabboos (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Christie RFC closure - still an issue

Following up on the previous discussion concerning your closure of the RFC discussion on the question "Is information about Chris Christie administration officials appropriate for the article". As you suggested, I have pointed editors to the discussion on your Talk page. An editor is still arguing that the RFC discussion did not consider whether information about actions of Christie administration officials is appropriate for the article. It would be helpful if you would modify the summary of the discussion that you provided in the closing statement. Dezastru (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually a couple of editors disagree with Dezastru's efforts to re-litigate this discussion (Talk discussion), as well as his attempts to insert inflammatory content in this BLP.CFredkin (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have given my opinion of what I think the outcome of the discussion was. I have neither the interest to pursue this further as an editor, nor do I have the authority to do anything as an administrator. Sandstein 05:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a review of the closure. Dezastru (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking for bold administrator(s)

Hello.

I look for an administrator of en.wikipedia (or a group of those) who is/are bold enough to overrule, based on editors’ consensus, one or two sysop’s incompetent rulings and make an admonishment (not necessarily formal) to one of the heroes. The case is yet insignificant for arbitration. Both WP:AN and WP:ANI already consider the question, but they are too slow and cluttered by babblers. I do not ask you personally to spend a time on my problem, but can you advise where can I find person(s) that will not be perceived as my sympathizers, but are able to effect something? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this request isn't specific enough for me to be able to do anything, see WP:GRA. Sandstein 13:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Should I suppose that you are willing to intervene personally? Okay, then simply 3 links:

but it will be boring. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, this still doesn't tell me what you would like me to do. As to where to find admins, WP:AN is the place to go, I suppose. Sandstein 14:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don′t see anything outrageous in the third link, as well as in the history of the respective article then er… I wouldn’t like you to intervene. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)