User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/November

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.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Districts_of_Switzerland#Article_naming. Eric ^talk 04:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, I've no opinion on the bulk of your comments at AE, but note that he is permitted to edit the Falkland Islands article, per this: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Amendments. If that affects your decision on whether to block, or the length of the block, probably better to address it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed, and left a correction. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

no prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I happen to think a month's block is quite outrageous in this case. Technically a violation of his topic ban but he withdrew from commenting two weeks ago. Hitting with the block hammer now is simply punitive not preventative. I would ask you take your block decision to

I disagree; it's preventative in that it prevents or deters further violations. MarshalN20's response didn't contain a clear statement that they acknowledge that their edits were topic ban violations and that they will not repeat them, so I believe an enforcement block is required. If they disagree with the block, MarshalN20 is free to appeal it.  Sandstein  19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am raising this at

WP:AN to request a review, I don't find your reply to be satisfactory as a means of dealing with a stale issue. It is no way preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk

19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. concerning MarshalN20, I'm currently in an edit war with this editor and I believe MarshalN20 was given a one month ban from editing which is still in enforce yet he had no problems editing some of my work in a wikipedia page. I just want some clarification, can he still edit pages? has the ban been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelios123 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I lifted the block on MarshalN20. They are still subject to a Southern American history topic ban. Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chelios123 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: )‎.  Sandstein  18:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a simply ridiculous block, this concerns a recent event in 2013. It is stretching his topic ban to ridiculous lengths to claim this is related to South American history. I would urge you to recondider. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said on a previous occasion, only the blocked user has any interest in contesting a block, so I'll only respond to any appeal by them, not by third parties.  Sandstein  20:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually any editor is free to comment but that is moot as Marshal has rightly appealed and you can take this as notice if you decline I will take this block to

WP:AN for review. Wee Curry Monster talk

20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Portlandiaman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlandiaman (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG you believe that is not so, you may try to recreate the article.  Sandstein 

19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20 by User:Sandstein". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I withdrew this after discussion with User:EatsShootsAndLeaves. Please note that I consider your interpretation of WP:Banning policy to be incorrect. Marshal can edit a football article but he can't edit those parts of the article related to the topic ban; which he did not. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know I posted the block appeal this morning. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is related to the recent

For instance, let us watch his latest deletion. Here is The Diff page, in which my sentence is deleted: "On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish"^[1].".

Here is the talk page, in which he have a couple of false claims, among them:" this quote is WP:UNDUE or does not comply with WP:NPoV due to the total lack of contextualization or comments from WP:RS sources regarding what should be understood from it".

• It is not a
  WP:NPoV
  since there is no alternative POV. Also, Pluto and Huldra (the opposing editors) does not mention what could be an alternative view.
• It is not
  WP:UNDUE
  since there is no other views . It consists of 1 sentence only, so it can not be to long as compared to the rest of the article.

Anyway, I have asked Huldra what kind of context he wants me to add, but have not received a reply yet.

As said, this is just an example for Pluto2012 disruptive editing. So I repeat the question: what is the threshold of his offenses (amount and / or severeness) that would make it suitable for a

That's a lot of allegations, all of which I and most other admins will completely ignore unless supported by pertinent diffs. I see only one diff here, and it's not evident, at least at first glance, how it constitutes misconduct.  Sandstein  19:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "it's not evident, at least at first glance, how it constitutes misconduct". In the

wp:ae#Pluto2012

.

Let us take a clearer example- the

wp:ae#Pluto2012

second and third deletion. (And even worst in the second one).

Another example : Pluto deleted my sentence "The Arabs rejected any form of partition" few times (e.g. the

wp:ae#Pluto2012 first one) and fought against it in the DRN, although , few month earlier, he himself said it is indeed correct. The DRN result was a sentence which is very close to my initial version. So Pluto knowingly fought against a correct sentence and wasted our (and the DRN volunteer) time. In my opinion, Pluto exposed his real deletion reason when he said: "The sentence "the Arab rejected any form of Partition" pictures Arab as a whole as uncompromising fanatics."

.

Sorry, that's too confusing for me to make sense of.  Sandstein  19:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think this is spiraling out of hands. Resuming editwar right after protection expired with pretext of BLP which he didn't get from BLPN or an admin after asking and calling it SPS ignoring the

Sandstein, Could you please close this request with a 'no action'? You'll be doing everyone a favor :) TG, re your note, DS is merely asking for source verification and has posted a note on the talk page requesting you do so. That is a fair request and in no way can be construed as being disruptive. The best thing for you to do is to provide the exact quote from the source as requested. (Apologies Sandstein. This shouldn't really be on your talk page but since I was here anyway with the other request ....) --regentspark (comment) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

TopGun, I see nothing obviously problematic in that article's recent history. RegentsPark, the discussion among admins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TopGun is still ongoing, but you're of course welcome to voice your opinion there.  Sandstein  19:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the point was that now I have to wait till the AE is closed before I know I should go digging for refs or leave the article totally alone. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello dear Sandstein. Yozer1 (talk · contribs) has been involved in disruptive editing that I find ridiculous. First, he blatantly vandalized the text in the etymology section of Erzurum [1] And when I reverted him he said "The sources are easy to provide. I suggest you consult before hastily reversing"! He was then reverted by User:HelenOnline, to which he responded "Nonsense. Additions to Wikipedia should not be erased. The one who erases them is at fault".

He failed to engage in any discussion. By the way, there is a lengthy discussion about the etymology of the city in the talk page. He prefers to push his POV instead of discussion the issue in the talk page. Interestingly, this is not the only case of his disruptive editing. At least 3 users have made similar concerns on his talk page. --

Nevermind. He was reported at ANI. --

^talk

17:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, The number of users who challenge my POV is no indication of them being right. I have taken note of everybody's concern and make appropriate changes when challenged with other valid facts and sources. Some editors who have little or no knowledge of the Arabic or Turkish language can challenge my translation or make claims. But they will come short as they might not have enough knowledge of the language or its etymology. They might choose to push their own interpretation as well.

The problem between

talk · contribs) and I was engaging in an edit-war. I did not notice making more than three edits and ended getting blocked. I will pursue other means to defend my point in the future. Thank you,Yozer1 (talk

) 18:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at history log, people add back and remove info, even at semi-protection. How long can things calm down? If unsure, what about

I'm not an expert in PC policy, sorry. To propose it, I suppose

WP:AE to request sanctions against edit-warring.  Sandstein 

07:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What about

WP:AN? George Ho (talk

) 07:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether that would be an appropriate forum.  Sandstein  07:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a statement already. But I know it's about one editor. George Ho (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that AE case is closed, can I at least request extra protection, or just leave it alone? George Ho (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You can do whatever you wish, I suppose.  Sandstein  14:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You write that there's not much you can do here. But I have a suggestion: Require that Gilabrand post suggested changes to leads of IP articles on the talk page before making the changes. Do not allow her to be WP:BOLD. I think this would solve most of the problems.

An interesting new kind of sanction, no? Ravpapa (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't choosing a sanction. It's establishing evidence of violations of specific Wikipedia conduct rules.  Sandstein  14:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the problem is neither choosing a sanction nor establishing evidence of violations. The problem is creating the editing environment most conducive to good articles. A directive to Gilabrand to post edits to the talk page first is not a punishment, it is simply a way to help Gilabrand be a better, more collaborative editor. Ravpapa (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up in case you didn't spot this yourself. If I wasn't involved he'd be blocked. --Michig (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sandstein, just noting that the user you blocked several days ago for a topic ban violation (and was subsequently unblocked after community discussion) has asked for a clarification on their topic ban