Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DYKUpdateBot (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 17 March 2011 (Giving DYK credit for Selphyl on behalf of Materialscientist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

More Longevity

I've already alerted EdJohnston about this. I don't think admonition is working. David in DC (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this case and can't assess the problem.  Sandstein  18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I had meant to post to User:Amatulic's talk page. David in DC (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

AE for 9/11 questions

Hi, I had seen your sig a few times on the AE page, so I thought that you might be able to offer some advice on something. Ghostofnemo has been pushing hard for one conspiracy theory organization to be included more in the article on 9/11. This has been discussed on the talkpage a few times, on WP:NPOVN, and probably a few other places. Discussion ended up as no consensus or leave out. Unfortunately Ghostofnemo has taken it upon himself to continue this by now trying to use the talkpage of the noticeboard as a straw poll while complaining of censorship. He has been notified of the 9/11 sanctions, but doesn't seem to think that refusing to lick his wounds and move on is disruptive.--Terrillja _talk 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The actual discussion has been going on for more than a year see this RFC and its discussion. That was the last time there was sizable input from the broader community, sadly the RfC was never closed by an admin, which let the issue fester, at this point most people have moved on to other topics - but at the time the headcount showed support for the inclusion. Subsequent discussions seem to have focused on pointing to immediate and local consensus and while I haven't been following them closely, it also seems that discussions that sought to bring in wider community input have be closed down fairly quickly. If anything a proper RfC should be reopened and the previous participants notified. un☯mi 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo has been tenditiously pushing this for over a year now. Every single time, he's brought it up, it has failed to achieve consensus. Enough's enough. I warned the editor yesterday but he hasn't stopped. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on NPOVN was open for a long time. There was no change in consensus given the "wider community discussion"--Terrillja _talk 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse NPOVN does not employ the RfC system of a final adjudicator who weighs the strengths of the arguments, it is fairly easy to claim consensus on poor grounds if you are vocal enough. I note for example that your argument of WP:UNDUE on the grounds of giving preferential treatment to one petition over another is unsubstantiated seeing as how this petition has demonstrably been covered in a number of sources - I see no evidence presented that other petitions have received similar coverage in RS - which would be the test for that particular argument. As stated above, I think it is probably best to open an RfC on the matter. un☯mi 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How will that end Ghostofnemo's disruption? If it fails again, he's just going to keep bringing it up. Bringing up the same thing over and over again is disruptive and it needs to end. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have ventured the idea of a final RfC on the matter to GoN, I expect that all involved parties will respect its outcome, in any case the resolution of one would make it easier to seek and get sanctions. un☯mi 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Making arguments on talk pages, even bad or repetitive arguments, is not normally grounds for AE sanctions. Only in the case of a severe WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT problem that persists even after a WP:RFC/U asked the user to stop could such sanctions be contemplated.  Sandstein  18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposing less desctructive sanctions

Regarding this, there are still points I raised in my comment, waiting for a response. But regarding the proposed sanctions, I would like to implore you to reduce their severity. Please note that I am asking for reduction of their severity for both sides, and the "non-Polish" (if I may use such a generalization) side is getting sanctioned more heavily... In particular, I would like you to consider:

• changing "topic bans" to "1RR restrictions" (or even "1RR/week" ones), add "renaming ban" when it would be necessary (for example for Jacurek). This would apply to Jacurek, Lokyz and Dr. Dan. The reason is that most edits by those editors, outside renaming edit warring, tend to be constructive. Taking away their ability to revert war should be enough to mostly eliminate the battleground (although perhaps some civility parole could be useful, too).
• I would also like to ask you to reconsider whether any sanctions on VM are necessary. Sanctioning an editor for four reverts on four different articles means sending a signal that even adhering to 1RR and BRD can get you in trouble. Out of the editors involved in that situation, only VM followed our policies to the letter: one revert + discussion is not only allowed, it is recommended (WP:BRD!). I believe that instead of getting sanctioned, VM should be commended for his behavior, and shown to other four as an example of how they should behave (consider this: if all four behaved like him - single revert and discussion - there would be no edit war and no AE thread...). If you sanction him, you say that in fact all reverts are bad, something that I believe would make any editing impossible. Also, please consider: if at some future point an editor would like to add or remove a name to an article, thinking back to his sanction, they will have a really serious temptation to sock - because even if they have never edited the article, and will do only a single revert, they have seen somebody in the same situation sanction for such an edit... thus I believe his sanction, if passed in the form you currently suggested, will send the wrong message to the community (respecting policies can get you in trouble, too, so why bother?) and have a counterproductive effort (encourage further policy evasion).

Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The reason why I am considering topic bans is that I believe that revert restrictions may not be enough, given how long (years!) the reverting has been going on on the same articles, and because the problem is not only edit-warring as such, it is also nationalist POV-pushing on both sides.

With respect to Volunteer Marek, what you say would be right (and I would not be considering sanctions) if his few reverts had been made in isolation. But they were not; they were part and parcel of the edit war conducted by the others, which means that he must carry at least a part of the responsibility for the edit war as a whole. In addition, I am disappointed by his continued confrontative "We are right and the others are wrong" attitude at WP:AE, which suggests that he does not understand the severity of the problem represented by nationalist battlegrounding.

But I will wait for input by other admins before making any decision.  Sandstein  06:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That the edit warring has been going for years does not mean that when we finally decide to do something about it we should use nukes. More tailored restrictions should achieve the same result, and allow editors to continue editing. If you look at edits by Lokyz and Jacurek, for example, you'll note that they only edit EE subjects. Topic banning them is not different from a full ban. And both editors have more constructive edits there that are not part of any edit war. Why prevent them from making them?

I am afraid I don't sign for the guilt by association logic. VM edits should be judged by what they were, not as some weird association with the events. The way I see it, he was following WP:BRD, and tried to add constructive and policy-guided input to the conflict. To penalize him for following policies sends a very wrong message. Further, which policy says that making 1 revert can get you into a restriction? WP:EW clearly states that the editor needs to make repetitive reverts to be considered part of an edit war. You were always very respectful of clearly following the policies, please consider the situation here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If editors edit only EE subjects, they do so by choice. Their personal choice of topics is not relevant for determining what sanctions are needed to stop disruption of the project. After a certain number of topic-related problems, sanctions that are specifically tailored to previous misconduct are no longer enough to prevent continued disruption, and the editor needs to removed from the topic entirely. This is particularly so if the actions for which they are sanctioned were attempts to promote a particular nationalist point of view, because this makes it very likely that they have also tried to push that POV via their other edits, and would continue to try and do so if they were continued to allow articles related to the topic.

With respect to guilt by association, I cannot follow you when you say that "WP:EW clearly states that the editor needs to make repetitive reverts to be considered part of an edit war". I cannot find such a statement anywhere on that page. What WP:EW says is:

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. ...

A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."

This means that an edit war is the whole series of reverts, and all editors who make one or more of these reverts (except for the first revert, which is the only one covered by WP:BRD), are taking part in the edit war and share responsibility for it. Even if they make only one revert, that one revert contributes to making the edit war go on, disrupting consensus-based dispute resolution. We can, however (and I do in my proposed sanctions) take account of how many reverts each editor contributed to the edit war when determining sanctions.  Sandstein  17:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

With regards to editing topics of choice, you are of course right it is a choice. But my point was that 1RR restrictions should be sufficient to stabilize the area. Topic bans will achieve nothing further that's constructive, instead they will hurt the project by denying it the otherwise constructive, non-edit warring edits those editors might have done.

I see now where we differ. I was under the impression that edit warring required one to make more than one edit to an article (I will ask for clarification on talk of WP:EW) and that 1RR/BDR allowed an editor one edit, no matter if there was (or wasn't) an edit war ongoing. For the second point, however, please note that BRD specifically suggests that it should be used (that I understand implies making a revert and then discussing) in cases where "Two factions are engaged in an edit war" and "Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached", which I think fits the situation. You also said yourself that "WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert" - which is the case of VM edits under discussion. Does it mean that you state that VM followed BRD correctly but nonetheless is still guilty of violating EW?

After your explanations, I understand your concerns better. I still think that there is no need to sanction VM. Punishing an editor for a single, non-repetitive edit rests, I think, on quite a slippery grounds, and BRD seems to explicitly allow editors to intervene in an edit war with a revert and a discussion, to make their position visible. Single reverts are not disruptive, repetitive ones are, after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One should keep in mind that WP:BRD is an essay and as such has very little weight for determining whether the edit-warring policy was violated or not. When I said that WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert, I meant a single revert in total, not a single revert per editor. What WP:EW seeks to prevent are the edit-wars themselves, not reverts per editor; and an edit-war that consists of 30 editors each reverting once is just as disruptive to consensus-finding as two editors reverting 15 times each. (The only difference is that in the latter case, the responsibility for the edit war is distributed among only two editors rather than 30, so the sanctions for the two will tend to be higher than the sanctions for each of the 30.)  Sandstein  17:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, your opinion that "BRD seems to explicitly allow editors to intervene in an edit war with a revert and a discussion" appears questionable to me given that the essay advises:

"Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring", and

"Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves", and

"Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D"."  Sandstein  17:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But it does include the first R :) Anyway, I had more time to look at four diffs by VM. This one is from mid-2010 - isn't it very, very stale? This, has a very informative edit summary, noting that the editor has not replied to question raised on talk for months, and was followed by another talk post. Seems quite reasonable and constructive to me, and the revert with edit summary directing the editor to talk is quite necessary, in light of them ignoring the past discussion there. Ditto for this, even if the period is 3 days. If an editor is ignoring talk discussion, a main-body edit asking him to stop warring and start discussing is an effective tactic, more liley to work that anything else I can think of (that they can keep on ignoring as not interfering with "their version"). By arguing that those edits are bad, you are going to make solving such a situation much more difficult in the future.

Lastly, I want to ask for an advice for my own future editing. If I see an editor adding/removing a name, revert him and I am reverted back (or if I add/remove a name and am reverted), or if I see other editors with a situation when there are 3+ reverts total, does it mean I should report them to AE for sanctions? Because I see no other way of dealing with the problem, if you will sanction VM. (I am assuming that talk discussions will not be very successful, as they have not been in the past). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits at issue in the AE request should be discussed at AE. With respect to your request for advice, you have other options than making an AE request in a situation where a revert by you is reverted back. These options are detailed at WP:DR. You should not assume beforehand that discussion won't work. And I can't imagine a situation where the other editor would be sanctioned at AE for a single revert of your revert, made in isolation. Reverts are problematic if they are part of a long chain of reverts by the same or other editors (i.e., an edit war), not when they occur in isolation.  Sandstein  18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not planning on reporting anything, as I don't believe it would be justified on such a flimsy ground as one revert in an article. I am however afraid that I may be reported for a single revert in an article, in which some other editors have been edit warring. The usual procedure in such cases, in my understanding, comprises of raising the issue on talk, with the optional but not-penalized single revert allowed per WP:BRD and the assumption (you question) that a single revert (1RR) is not edit warring. With your challenge to that assumption, you are essentially preventing anybody from making a third revert to the article, giving an unchallengeable primacy to editor who made the second edit, because as talk discussions are apparently not a factor in AE, anybody who will make the third edit can be (like VM) now reported for edit warring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Making a single revert that is the second revert is not edit warring. Making a single revert that is the third revert is probably not edit warring. Making a single revert that is the fourth revert may be edit warring. Making a single revert that is the fifth revert (as here, one of the edits cited at AE) is likely edit warring. Making a single revert that is the sixth revert is almost certainly edit-warring. You see what I mean? As the chain of reverts gets longer, the more clearly we are in an edit war situation, and the risk of being sanctioned for even one (additional) revert increases. I don't try to come up with a general rule stating that after x number of reverts any additional revert is sanctionable edit-warring, though. This is both so as not to enable gaming of the system (giving any particular editor "the last word", as you fear), and because several factors have to be taken into account, such as the timing of the reverts, the amount of content reverted, and any mitigating or aggravating factors (including, here, that similar reverts were made across several articles).  Sandstein  19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that those "several factors" are not clearly defined. For example, it seems that we disagree on mitigating factors such as starting/participating in talk discussion and constructive use of edit summaries, which I and others pointed to and you didn't include (or in case of Jacurek, standing on more than one side of the proverbial barricade, and making edits in support of various national/ethnic groups, not just one). You see making 2-3 edits in a similar timeframe (on 2-3 articles) as aggreviating. I see that as insignificant, and combined with constructive discussion, as actually more constructive then not (editor became insterested in a similar series of edits and consequently made a revert and a discussion post to each article in question). Further, I see making no more then 1 revert, with a good edit summary plus a discussion post as commendable instead of sanctionable. Because of that, I prefer a simple rule, which stems from BRD and 1RR, and gives each user a "free ticket" for 1 revert, with the usual provisions that if users are seen as gaming the system (there are indications of coordinated edit warring, or they are consistently reverting without participating in discussion, thus acting as meatpuppets), they can be warned and then restricted. My solution is simpler (no need for detailed review of marginal participants and consequent muddying the water - note that this discussion is mostly about an editor whose involvement and sanctioning is borderline, not about the rest of the editors who were clearly and undeniably edit warring) and it assumes more good faith for editors, unless they consistently abuse their BRD/1RR privilege in a disruptive fashion (which obviously is not the case with VM). Here I will also note that you have not warned VM that his actions may be seen as EW (an interpretation of EW that has clearly proven controversial, as several editors have pointed out so far); this entire case could have been - can still be - silenced if you were just to warn him to be more careful, not sanction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, simple mathematical rules are too easily gameable. Uncertainty is an effective deterrent. For instance, with your "free ticket" for one revert, the side with more editors (who can all make one revert each) always "wins" the edit war and so has no incentive to engage in discussion. It is easier to remember the following: If you are editing topics subject to discretionary sanctions, and come to a dispute in which there has already been much reverting, do not make even one additional revert. Otherwise you risk sanctions. Unfair, perhaps, in your opinion, but effective as a means to disincentivize ideologically polarized edit wars. I think we will have to agree to disagree in this matter.  Sandstein  20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly. I will note that your current version does support the side with more editors, as they can take more "casualties". It will also encourage more battleground mentality, as editors will try to game the system and report 3+ reverts to AE. Which may lead to reporters getting sanctioned, sure, but so what? The side with more editors will still win, as again, they can afford to test the boundaries more. Whereas in my system, a side with more editors can still be penalized, as a case can be made about coordinated reverting. Although if there is no edit war and there is discussion, the chances are much higher that cooler, more reasonable editors are involved (particularly in discussion) then in your solution, where battleground mentality is high, more neutral editors are afraid to edit involved articles (where their comments are ignored and making a revert lands them in the penalty box along with the really disruptive warriors), and thus the affected articles became the domain of warring nationalist warriors. "Nuke them all and call the desert peace" is not the best solution when your final goal goes beyond peace (like, for example, in the case when you actually want to create content-filled encyclopedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, your comment that I does not understand the severity of the problem represented by nationalist battlegrounding. is bad faithed and untrue. I take the issue of the disruptive nature of nationalist battlegrounds very seriously. Your assertion is not supported by any kind of evidence nor is it logically sound. Simply, this conclusion that you made up does not follow from the premise - as it is I do in fact think that some people here were "more right" than others in that they were following policy as outlined at WP:NCGN, while others were purposefully ignoring the said policy. It pretty much IS editors on one side of the dispute who made this into a battleground - witness the fact that a similar battleground DOES NOT occur with respect to German names in Polish places, as exemplified by Herkus' edits. But just because I think the blame lies disproportionately with one side, doesn't mean I "don't care about nationalist battlegrounds" or whatever. I'd ask you to strike that accusation but I know there's no point to such a request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These options are detailed at WP:DR. You should not assume beforehand that discussion won't work. - the options detailed at WP:DR include starting a discussion talk page and asking for a third opinion. This is exactly what I did here. Obviously, using DR procedures is not enough to avoid getting AE sanctions from you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sandstein. As I generally get along with both Polish and Lithuanian editors, am well versed in the history of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth et al., and have been able to help out in the past, I would be willing to act as an arbitrator if involved editors are willing to present their case on place names—this more than likely means on an article by article basis—and accept whatever I suggest is editorially appropriate. We could reconvene and discuss naming decisions, say, in 6 months to see if we have a consensus as to whether things have improved. All we are seeing here is the entirely predictable fallout from the inimical 20th century Poland-Lithuania relationship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to try to mediate the naming content disputes, but nobody is bound to accept either your mediation or your suggestions of what is editorially appropriate. Misplaced Pages works on the consensus model and has no authoritative content dispute resolution framework.  Sandstein  19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein: Making a single revert that is the fifth revert (as here, one of the edits cited at AE) is likely edit warring. - first, that was not the fifth revert, please count again. There was one revert by Jacurek and two by Lokyz previously. Second, that edit came 4 days after I initiated talk page discussion and Lokyz failed to respond - hence, I felt justified in making it. Third, as soon as Lokyz reverted me - within two hours, despite the fact that he didn't even bother replying on talk in the previous 4 days - I ceased making any further edits to the article and asked for a third opinion instead. I'm sorry but there is no way that my actions here are "edit warring". They follow policy and DR to a letter. You yourself, when asked to consider content disputes, usually tell editors involved to go to WP:DR. That is exactly what I did here. Yet... you're holding that against me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Question at EW

I asked a question and cited you here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions for you

From Risker. NW (Talk) 23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking on this page for the conversation we were having some days ago....

Hi Sandstein, I have been busy producing events, today I returned to your talk page to continue our conversation, but discovered that the conversation we were having has disappeared. Where might I find that? it wasn't that long ago... sometime last week. Thanks, Constance Demby Constancemary (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(driveby) Try looking here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting

On 16 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Frankfurt Airport shooting of 2 March 2011, in which two U.S. airmen were killed, is suspected to be the first deadly act of Islamist terrorism in Germany? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It is now featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Selphyl

On 17 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Selphyl, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the U.S., vampire facelifts are not approved by the FDA? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)