Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 1 March 2019 (→Topic ban: reply). 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.

What do you think of talk page bans / civility restrictions?

I noticed you seem to prefer content-area topic bans instead. But if someone makes a WP:NPA, wouldn't it make more sense to use a talk page(s) ban, interaction ban, of some sort of NPA 3RR like 'if you make another NPA again in the next half a year, you'll be blocked for a day, two, four, in escalating number for each violation, and the civility restriction will be reset'? If an editor has a problem with attitude but not content, shouldn't we address it instead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that sort of escalating blocks would need to meted out by arbcom because if not and it wasn't an AE sanction any uninvolved admin could reverse it so the blocking admin trying to make those rules would be about as useful as the US Senate and Congress which is to say a lot of words but not much use...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how those kind of blocks or bans would be easier to revert than topic bans? Wheel warring is wheel warring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong but an administrator setting escalating blocks like that would seem to not be the appropriate avenue for that level of sanctions. It's hardly wheel warring for an admin to disregard an arbitrary block length set by another. It only becomes wheel warring when one admin reverses the block. I'm not an admin but that is my experience after being here several years, again could be wrong but it seems wrong to allow that much power to one admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't use this kind of restriction because it rarely works and involves too much micro-management. Sandstein 22:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Pokémon Prism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokémon Prism. Since you had some involvement with the Pokémon Prism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –eggofreason 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot

This is such a useful tool. When can we expect it to be up and running again? Thanks and appreciate your efforts. --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. It's not my bot. Sandstein 22:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the question was asked since the code on the Misplaced Pages server has been updated to no longer remove publisher/location. Therefore the block you put into effect can be removed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's up to the bot operator. As soon as they confirm the bot is fixed, they can unblock it themselves. Sandstein 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Goats of Anarchy

Hello Sandstein. I'm finding quite a bit of coverage since this AfD closed as delete. Could you please move the deleted article to draftspace so I cam work on it? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete content, but you are free to ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 14:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFUND is for uncontroversially deleted subjects ie. not Afds. If you aren't willing to move deleted articles to draftspace.for editors who want to work on subjects maybe you shouldn't close deletion doscussions? Editors are asked to request undeletion from the closer if they wamt to work on a subject. Do I have to go to DRV or is there another option? Seems like a waste of time and effort for what should be a non-controversial polite and routine request. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There is another option: you can go to WP:REFUND and ask for an admin to restore it to draftspace with my permission. Sandstein 14:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mizrahi_Hebrew

Greetings, Sandstein, I apologize for bothering you. However, in that AfD I counted 3 supporters for deletion/merge, one for keep/merge and only two for unquestionable keep. Another editor commented that the article needs better sourcing for it is not supported by the ones cited. Even more importantly, the keep party presented absolutely no sources but only made claims without references. Consensus, to the best of my understanding, cannot outweigh sheer facts. Considering all this, shouldn't the article be deleted or at least merged? AddMore-III (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tatzref AE

Sandstein, I posted my comment right after the thread closed; I hope you don't mind me moving this here:

I would still like to hear from Tatzref if a. there's a COI with the Polish-Canadian Congress (KPK); and b. what he means when he says that "Collaborating with one of these states in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other ." This reads uncomfortably close to Jew-Bolshevik construct of Nazi propaganda and / or the Jews had it coming. (Since there was no comment from Tatzref on that during the AE, perhaps he can supply the answer here). --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban

Since you've closed the AE thread and since you note in your close that there is substantial disagreement over your topic ban (from at least three other admins - User:Black Kite, User:Drmies and User:Bishonen, and perhaps User:Newyorkbrad) I am formally asking you to reconsider your decision (per #1 here) and rescind the topic ban. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think the topic ban is not or no longer necessary? Sandstein 08:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I can't say that I think it was necessary in the first place - you're incorporating an obviously contentious conclusion inside your question (that it was indeed necessary). It seems that multiple admins agree with me. There was no disruption on my part in the actual topic area as far as article content or talk page discussions are concerned. Your issue was with a statement I made at WP:AE. Now, contrary to your assertion, most of my comment (all but one or two sentences - and I'm pretty wordy) did in fact directly address the issues raised by the original poster. That's why my "points" were numbered - so that it would be easy to see exactly which of the original issues they referred to. I understand that you think that those one or two sentences were problematic and yeah, I can see that. Had you asked me to strike them I would have been happy to do so. Had you issued a warning I would have heeded it. If you had instructed me to provide further evidence or open a new AE request, I would have done so. But you did not make that possible.

I can promise however that I will not refer to the editors involved as a "tag-team" in the future and I'll refrain from discussing the possible motivations that the relevant editor might have for filing WP:AE requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced. Your appeal, above, acknowledges that "those one or two sentences were problematic" and you write that you will "refrain from discussing the possible motivations" at AE. That's a good start. But I am disappointed that you expected a warning first. You are an experienced editor and have been the target of multiple AE sanctions. You do not need a warning, particularly given that in the very post at issue you outlined the conduct expectations that you yourself violated with the same post. You know that the Arbitration Committee's expectation is that all editors are on their best behavior in AE topic areas. And you do not convince me that you understand why I considered it necessary to impose the sanction: that your intervention as a whole - beyond one or two sentences - was not helpful in resolving the AE request against Tatzref, but that it compounded and continued the problem of battleground-like conduct in the Eastern Europe topic area, in that it cast the existing disagreements as a conflict between ideologically opposed groups rather than as presumably legitimate differences in point of view.

Your intervention was disruptive and unnecessary. At AE, I do not care a whit about your or any other user's personal opinions about the conduct of the parties. The only kind of comments by third parties that I welcome at AE are those which help me as a reviewing admin assess the complaint at hand, by briefly providing new, relevant evidence in the form of diffs. Otherwise, you should stay out of AE, and you should certainly not further inflame a dispute.

For these reasons, I remain of the view that the topic ban remains necessary to prevent further disruption of this kind by you. But in recognition of your partial acknowledgment of your problematic conduct, I reduce its duration to one month. You remain free to appeal this reduced ban in the venues provided for at WP:AE#Appeals. Sandstein 11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)