User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/July

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. 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.

Arbitration enforcement?

You have left me a note on my talk page, with the heading "Arbitration enforcement editing restriction (Arab-Israeli conflict) amended", stating that "In response to opinions by other administrators at WP:AE, the duration of the restriction banning you from commenting about enforcement restrictions by others is set to three months". :I was not aware that any such ban had been imposed on me. Please inform me when it was imposed, by whom, and for what offence; this is the first notification I have received. RolandR (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to leave the message for another user but opened the wrong talk page. Please disregard the message. Sandstein 11:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why the concerns raised by three separate editors [1] [2][3] were ignored regarding your sanctions against user:Sean.hoyland. Dlv999 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read these concerns, but they are not on point. I blocked Sean.hoyland because they accused another editor of sockpuppetry and did not provide evidence after being asked to, but reiterated the allegations. In particular, Sean.hoyland did not refer to any statement by a checkuser when making the allegations I blocked them for. As an experienced editor, Sean.hoyland should know that if one must accuse another editor of misconduct, this must be done in the appropriate forum (which would have been WP:SPI in this case) and it must also be done with actionable evidence. See, in general, WP:ASPERSIONS. Sandstein 13:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As his first edits coming back from the block you imposed on User:Sean.hoyland for accusing people of being socks without evidence, he made the following edits [4],[5], again accusing me of being a sock, without any evidence, and begging me to go to an admin to take action against him. (I will mention that based on a similar baseless report, and SPI was just conducted and the CU found it to be baseless [6]) The filer of that fishing expedition report was blocked for a week . Seems like similar action is needed here. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not quite correct. My very first edit after my block was this note to Bbb23 at the edit warring noticeboard, which I suggest you read, where I also referred to you as a sockpuppet. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See this, as well: "just to make it crystal clear, I have just done exactly the same thing there that recently resulted in my being blocked for 48 hours by Sandstein for describing a sockpuppet as a sockpuppet. I made it as my very first post-block edit. You are welcome to apply another block. I don't mind" . Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

- And just to make it crystal-clear; you have to block me too (my first in my 9 years here). And most other content creators in the I/P area. I find it outrageous that we cannot describe those loud disruptive quacking feathery creatures for what they are; WP:Ducks. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

People, the rules are quite clear. If you think that another editor is a sockpuppet, you must make this accusation in the proper forum, WP:SPI, and with actionable evidence. All other accusations of sockpuppetry aimed at another editor are personal attacks, and are dealt with accordingly. However, if further sanctions are needed to prevent such conduct, I would like to discuss the form of such sanctions of other admins first. Therefore, Kipa Aduma, Esq., if you think that this requires admin action, please ask for it at WP:AE. Sandstein 08:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi. Is this edit a revert or not? I'm asking because, despite the fact that I'm removing POV accusations only supported by a clear POV unreliable source, those paragraphs have been a long time there, therefore I could interpret that my first edit wasn't a revert. But maybe I'm wrong. I want to know if I can revert this within a 24 hours period without breaking 1RR. Thanks a lot!--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't give you authoritative advice about this. Another administrator enforcing 1RR might see the matter differently from me. You'll have to use your own best judgment. Sandstein 08:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at ARE

Are you the admin who is overseeing my request for enforcement at ARE? If so, do I respond to your comment there or here? If there, where there? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is overseeing the request, as such, but any admin may comment or act on it. You should reply in the request section at WP:AE, and/or you should amend the request as necessary to perhaps make it actionable. Sandstein 05:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hectic day for me today. Granddaughter with me. Car broke down in 100+ degree heat. Home now and tried making my request more clear. Does that help? ... Going to rest now. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, up until about a month or month-and-a-half ago, his tactic with me was personal attacks. He has mostly stopped that, as far as I can tell. Then, while I was on vacation (and he knew I was on vacation), he hijacked an article I'd developed because he doesn't like the term "assault weapons ban" (meeting WP:NC as a common term in a preponderance of WP:V sources here in the U.S.) appearing as a "See also" on a related page. I could've "won" that dispute if I'd pushed my advantage in an edit war, but I took the high road (which all the advice tells us we're supposed to do) and started a discussion - and the reward I got for doing it right is that the article is now titled "Assault weapons legislation," which is absolutely NOT WP:UCN. You can get the details about that fiasco here [7] if you're interested.

I hope that background helps a little, but either way... Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

About S.H.

This belongs in the ongoing AE discussion, or nowhere. Sandstein 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Is this a violation of the topic ban you imposed against him? I'm just asking. Cheers.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

By asking you are violating the WP:SOCK policy. AmirSurfLera, you are a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Special:Contributions/Shamir1, at first via Special:Contributions/Precision123 which you stopped using on 2014-05-26. Now it's via your current account after you switched over from one to the other a few days later on 2014-05-29, as indicated by the change in slope of the graph of cumulative edits. You know this is true. There is nothing at all stopping you from saying so and following the clean start track. Please read what I wrote here and do the right thing. I would like to tell you how I identified you but I can't because it relies on your many tells and you would use that information to avoid detection. Sandstein takes the view that Wikipedia operates as a court where there is a presumption of innocence. So do you. I don't because it doesn't work. SPI and admins can't stop an editor like you from editing because bypassing the constraints that are available is trivial. And Wikipedia isn't a court. It's a private entity, more like a bar where the staff should use their experience and discretion to expel trouble makers with minimum disruption to the innocent good people. As for the issue at hand, your desperation to have me blocked is showing. Don't worry about that. I can help you with that by continuing to say things that are true. Even if my commenting at the edit warring noticeboard were a violation of a restriction, and it isn't, there's no chance whatsoever that I will comply with any warning or restrictions that result from an AE report submitted by a sockpuppet because it is not in the interests of the project to do so. That is the case for the AE report that you submitted that resulted in the restrictions Sandstein imposed and it will be the case for the outcome of the current case at AE submitted by another account where the probability of the editor not being a sock is negligible, as should be obvious to anyone familiar with the topic area. If that results in my account being blocked that is just tough shit. It's nothing personal but I should always do what I think is in the best interests of the project and take the consequences. Admins should do the same. If there is a mismatch, c'est la vie. If the outcome results in ARBPIA becoming even worse than it is now (which I doubt because it can't really get any worse), that will provide useful information about what not to do in future and how to make the topic area better. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In light of Sean's explicit remark that he has no intention of complying with warnings and restrictions imposed by administrators, the fact that he violated a topic ban and he keeps accusing me of sockpuppetry without opening an SPI to prove it so (although there are at least two SPIs which found me innocent), I request a blockade against this user. I'm not a sockpuppet and I won't tolerate any other baseless accusation against me by a POV user who breaks wikipedia's rules with impunity.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Now, I hate to be a pedant but I haven't said that I have "no intention of complying with warnings and restrictions imposed by administrators", although any editor can of course do that and unfortunately there is no way to stop them. What I actually said was "there's no chance whatsoever that I will comply with any warning or restrictions that result from an AE report submitted by a sockpuppet because it is not in the interests of the project to do so". The difference is important to me, but perhaps not to others. I can live with the consequences of that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, stop calling me "sockpuppet". Second, your topic ban was imposed by Sandstein, not me. Third, you are compelled to obey the topic ban, whether you like it or not. Nobody is asking you to participate in Wikipedia. If you don't like the rules of this encyclopedia, I suggest you to get a job or learn how to play tennis. Because clearly this is not the place for an arrogant biased editor like you. Now I'll stop wasting my time with you. I only hope that, after reading this conversation, Sandstein will block you for a while, as you deserve. Have a nice day.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's charming. Not that it matters but you couldn't be more wrong. You will find that is the case for many educated professionals you probably think are unemployed activists who volunteer their time here because they are able to do so. In the future you may come to see where you have gone wrong and do the right thing. I hope so. Sean.hoyland - talk

Sean Hoyland's ban

Sandstein, after I blocked AmirSurfLera (talk · contribs · count) per a report at WP:AN3, I noticed Sean's ban in the log. Sean brought the report to AN3. Literally, the ban doesn't appear to prevent him from bringing a report, although it gets a bit odd when he comments on his own report, but I'm concerned that (a) he may have violated his ban and (b) if so, whether my action blocking AmirSurfLera is tainted because of it. I'd like to hear your thoughts. In the interm I'll proceed as if nothing has changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think that your block is problematic, and Sean.hoyland's restriction does not prohibit them from making requests of their own. But I'd appreciate your or other admins' comments on Sean.hoyland's conduct in the related thread at WP:AE. Sandstein 19:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler action deferred

Hello Sandstein. Please see my recent edit of the suspended report on Plot Spoiler. I'm notifying you since you joined in the admin discussion. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for the notice. I'm of the view that there is no particular need to wait and that the request can be processed now. But I won't be the one to do it, as, in my view, the request does not really make clear how the reported edits constitute misconduct. Sandstein 19:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

TBAN appeal

Hi Sandstein, as you're an admin who TBAN'ed me I think it's better to address and ask directly you with an appeal for my TBAN to be lifted from me.

I was TBAN'ed back in January 2014 and during this period of time till today I was productively editing Wiki. I've much contributed to many articles, made 2 articles a GA article, cleaned many articles from mistakes, created new articles and etc. The thing is I could continue editing even with this TBAN but the major thing is that the current TBAN what is about Armeno-Georgain connection it has a lot of marginal connections in many other neutral and non-controversial Georgian-related articles and that is seriously making me trouble to edit any of those. Please note that during this time from January till today I received from you 2 blocks. One from Mithridates of Armenia where I accidentally and automatically added a new category and second from Pharnavaz I of Iberia because of its marginal connection to my TBAN. What I mean is that I haven't edited those 2 articles in purpose back then to avoid my TBAN or violate it. Not at all. I value Wikipedia and having had many mistakes in the past I don't make such mistakes anymore. Now as for the TBAN itself, I do recognize that I was rude in some way and was non-compromising with the Armenian users and my statement back then which led me to TBAN was wrong and maybe offensive to some. I understand it and I am ready to cooperate with good faith with Armenian users from now on if the second chance is given by you. I give you my word that all those controversial articles concerning Armeno-Georgian connections I will edit constructively, will not edit war and will discuss it in a calm and respectable manner with them if any problems would arise. If or when no consensus would be reached I will directly ask for an admin involvement or 3rd party opinions to settle such issues down and you can be sure that I won't mess everything around and I will keep my word. I will directly inform you when those issues arise and you'll see I am following my promise given to you. I recognize my past mistakes and behaviour and want to ask you to give me a second chance and lift and cancel this TBAN from me. Hope you'll understand me. Thank you, Jaqeli 14:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, your topic ban is lifted. Please make sure to refrain from confrontational or disruptive editing in this topic area, such as edit-warring or assuming bad faith on the part of others. Sandstein 19:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. I will definitely keep my word. Jaqeli 20:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Levan Jibladze

Sandstein, can you please delete Levan Jibladze? This page was deleted 4 times since 2012 and I think it should definitely be deleted. Jaqeli 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not deleting articles without a good reason. Please review our deletion policy to understand how and why you may request that articles are deleted. Sandstein 21:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

G4 and G12. I think that's a good enough reason, no? They recreate the same deleted page + with copyright violation again and again. Jaqeli 21:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Then please use the templates listed at WP:CSD on the article, this will attact the attention of an admin specialised in speedy deletion, which I'm not. Sandstein 04:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. Jaqeli 05:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

James Frenkel

Hi, I've opened up a new section Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Frenkel as the previous ones have been archived and I have additional, primary sources. I'd appreciate your comment there.

Thanks, Lepidoptera (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

Hi Sandstein,

Can you please delete these two my pages? this and this. Jaqeli 16:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You can apply {{db-userreq}} to them and an admin will be along shortly to delete them. Sandstein 16:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaqeli 16:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Request Clarification

Hi, I was wondering if you could clarify a couple of things concerning your statement on an WP:AE filed against me. Were you aware that I posted a response later beneath Nishidani's complaint? In case I did not provide enough detail of what occurred, I would like to explain that Nishidani made a single edit which included both controversial edits and a non-controversial correction. After reading his edit I went to the talk page to check if he has justified his edits or obtained consensus (he had not), by which time the relatively minor matter of a correction of a few words at the end of the paragraph had slipped my mind. And I was only made aware of it through the medium of the most vitriolic personal attack that I had ever encountered on Wikipedia which I think explains my response. This is an extremely common oversight that occurs when multiple changes are lumped into a single edit. I've seen it happening countless times and in my opinion it certainly does not justify Nishidani's incredible overreaction. Do you think that it is fair to harshly sanction an editor based on what it is actually a very common oversight? Would you agree that Nishidani's personal attack was way out of proportion to my error? As I'm considering going through the appeals process I would appreciate any explanation. Thanks. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is moot to discuss this now after a sanction has been imposed and before an appeal has been made. These concerns should principally be discussed with the sanctioning admin. If and when you decide to appeal the sanction, I may comment on the matter further. Sandstein 16:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But, on reflection, briefly, my response to these kinds of questions by an editor who has been sanctioned is summarized at WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 17:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

GoT

So I don't really care about you reverting my edit here, but I did want to point out that though you suggest in your edit summary that the quote adds "little that's not already been said," I don't see anywhere in the article where anything has actually been said regarding the show's themes (or the writing at all, really). And the discussion of the plot is basically about how Martin was inspired by every era of European history. If you need to know where they shoot or how many wigs they use, the article is great though. — TAnthony^Talk 03:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, we might need to rework the article to include a section about themes and influences. Even then, though, I personally don't feel that the quote you added imparts much in the way of actual information. Sandstein 07:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I included you in a request for clarification

It was so empty without names so I put yours there. Please tell me what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Cold_Fusion_is.2Fisn.27t_Pseudoscience

84.106.11.117 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, your comment was very helpful in illustrating what I was referring to.

I regret how combative it sounds, and that it reflects poorly on you, my apologies for that.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Appealing my TBan

Sir, I am appealing my TBan again here, based on advice I received last time.—Khabboos (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions you won't answer

I know admins hate this question, but I must ask, what exactly do you expect the overall effect on wikipedia to be from my ban? Do you expect the vandalism I revert to stop? Will the hundreds of socks I deal with stop appearing? Will those who misrepresent sources stop? Will those who upload extremist maps stop doing so? Will people stop their personal or group, nationalistic campaigns to demonize and delegitimize a people and a nation? How does banning me for confronting those who seek to attack and abuse wikipedia make sense? Admins do this everyday. Sepsis II (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The sanction imposed on you is a result of your own conduct. The conduct of others is not factored into it, and I do not expect it to be affected by the sanction. Sandstein 18:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I knew you wouldn't answer the question, but I'll ask again, what exactly do you expect the overall effect on wikipedia to be from my ban? How can an intelligent person not understand that their actions have consequences? You can't just deny or ignore causality. Sepsis II (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I expect the effect to be that you will cause less problems for others in one topic area for at least six months. Sandstein 19:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

With that solid logic why not ban everyone from ARBPIA articles, that would result in zero problems. Sepsis II (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Facts:Socks and editors fight. Banned accounts can't fight. Socks can not be banned. Editors can be banned.

Solution to stop fights: Ban editors. Sepsis II (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I came to this talk page for a different reason, but either I am confused or the OP is confused. How can a banned editor be posting with his signature to a second-party talk page? Maybe the OP isn't banned but only topic-banned (possibly for flaming about the sockpuppets).

TB, ofc. Well Sandstein, the socks keep using proxies to revert my edits, I'm sure they are thankful for your support; if not for you I would be out there causing problems for them. Sepsis II (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of appsfreedom inc page in Wiki

Hello,

This is Vijay from appsFreedom, it seems that you have deleted our company page from Wiki. Do you mind telling us the reason which will help us to manage it better.

Warm regards, Vijay AF.Vijayaraghavan (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Welcome to the cold fusion zoo. As you can see, it is repeatedly visited by logged-out editors, including one who admits to being a registered editor. It has gotten to where I no longer assume good faith as to their use of IPs. As noted on the ArbCom page, I think that one of the objectives of the clarification request is to try to bypass the RFC. The IP probably made the deletion review request from the IP rather than from the registered account because he is topic-banned, blocked, or banned from the registered account (evasion). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That is possible. Sandstein 19:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP says that he doesn't have a registered account. The large number of IPs at Talk: Cold fusion have stretched my willingness to assume good faith. The percentage of IPs is greater than it is at normal articles that aren't under discretionary sanctions, and I still wonder whether they are engaged in block evasion. In any case, the reason for the filing of the ArbCom clarification request appears to be an attempt to game the system by having the ArbCom take the place of allowing the RFC to run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Gaza War

There are currently ongoing RFC Talk:Gaza_War#RfC:_IDF_image in my opinion its not "neutral statement of the issue" for example phrase "IDF is not a reliable source" moreover why onlt pictures from IDF are examined and not from other sources for example International Solidarity Movement. I like to hear your input on this issue as uninvolved adminstrator.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a content issue, and so it does not need input from administrators in my view. And as a user, I'm just not interested enough in this whole conflict to form an opinion, sorry. Sandstein 12:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Does phrasing of the RFC is not behaviour issue i.e if it not according to the policy what should i do?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... you can register your disagreement with how the RfC is phrased in the RfC itself, I suppose. But I can't readily imagine how a biased or otherwise faulty RfC might amount to sanctionable misconduct. Sandstein 15:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW

Regarding the deletion of my comments at ARE, I asked Lord Roem about it a couple hours ago,[8] and he was OK with the edit, as there was an edit conflict.[9] Lightbreather (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, but now the request is concluded and there is no need for you to interact with this topic area any further, in view of your topic ban. Sandstein 17:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

LB, I was just saying not to fret about the edit conflict. No need to continue the conversation now. I think it'd be best to take a breather. :) Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. If the close had happened before I started my reply to Cap - I wouldn't have started my reply to Cap. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

ARE procedure question

I'm not sure if this is worth bringing up in the ARE again, but I pointed out what seemed to be an Ad Hominem personal attack made by Lightbreather towards me at the end of her comments here. First, is it an Ad Hominem attack? Second, if so, can it be addressed? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit just adds a diff. I don't see a personal attack in that. Sandstein 19:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)♥

It was at the bottom where she states, "He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women." Under regular circumstances I ignore comments like this, but she saw fit to make it during an ARE process. I've lost track of how many times she's accused me of making a personal attack simply based on a comment regarding a series of edits on one article or across several. This seemed more blatant. Seemingly, there are myriad of perceived problems commented on by Lightbreather that could be solved (or just not exist) if she was less personally sensitive (making issues about her) and more tolerant of the opinions of others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That text is not added in the diff you provide. Sandstein 20:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think this is the correct one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. This is a personal attack or close to it, and you can bring it to administrators' attention in the section reserved for your statement at WP:AE. But considering that a mutual topic ban is about to be imposed, this interaction is not likely to change that outcome. Sandstein 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I did, but no one responded to it. Maybe its moot now that the ban is in effect, but LB added quite a bit of additional material over the weekend taking stabs at everyone including the entire Editor corps of WP. I don't intend to appeal, but should her attack in the middle of an ARE process go unpunished? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm done letting it be "water under the bridge". How and where do I make the complaint of her personal attack during the ARE process? She repeated the comment when addressing both of us here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think that I am being reasonably patient and I understand that you likely have better (and likely far more important) things to do, but I would like an answer to "How and where do I make the complaint of her personal attack during the ARE process?" The offending comment was stated twice during the proceeding. If part of the problem in answering is because LB involved you in the personal attack, I will ask a different Admin. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well. Because Wikipedia doesn't have a complaints department, you may complain anywhere you like, but there is no guarantee that anybody will act on your complaint. If you think that administrative actions such as blocks are warranted, you may request such actions at WP:ANI. But I will not take any action, and I advise you not to make a request for administrative action. That's because sanctions on Wikipedia are preventative and not punitive. And because the other editor is already topic-banned, my view is that no further preventative action needs to be taken because the likelihood of you two interacting again in a confrontative manner is, hopefully, low. Sandstein 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and advice. Since I do not wish to be as tendentious as LB, I will just leave it at that and not pursue this any further. I guess since the proceeding somewhat bommerang'd and resulted in a TBan for both of us, that's better than nothing. Plus Callanecc is starting to get direct exposure to her method of interaction on the site, so the higher powers will hopefully better understand (or at least become more aware of) her "bull in a China shop" tactics.

That said and for the record, the intention behind any of the edits I made was for the sake of article neutrality. None of it was "about her" as she asserted. Furthermore, even if its not supposed to be punitive, I'm OK with abiding by the TBan as penance for my actions in reacting to LB. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Sandstein, I'd like to ask you if you could watch this two pages, Mesrop Mashtots and Caucasian Albanian alphabet. Per Georgian scripts, I've removed in those two articles a controversial statements about the Georgian scripts. We've gone a long way to make a Georgian scripts article a stable one and please do everything possible for those 2 articles to be stable and free of very controversial claims. As promised, I'll be informing you shortly if any problems will arise in future as well but for now please monitor these 2 articles if you can. Thank you. Jaqeli 11:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm not monitoring these pages, because the topic does not interest me in my capacity as an editor. If you think that the assistance of an administrator is needed, you should monitor these pages yourself and ask for any required assistance in the appropriate forum such as WP:ANI or WP:AE. Sandstein 12:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

All right thanks. Jaqeli 12:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, may I know why Jaqeli's topic ban was lifted? He continues his POV-pushing on Armenia-related articles the same way he was before the ban. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see here for the context. If you believe there is misconduct warranting the reimposition of sanctions, you can request them at WP:AE. But be advised that allegations of misconduct without convincing evidence in the form of diffs, as in your message above, may lead to sanctions against yourself. Sandstein 16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember that I opposed your candidacy, or why, and I've not interacted with you since, so I don't really have anything useful to say. Sandstein 07:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Spirit?

Let me understand: an editor improves an article, formatting a malformed infobox. He is asked to revert that. I thought the request was not serious: "degrade the quality of an article"? Really?? - But I see on ACE that it was awfully serious. Let me understand the spirit behind that. Wir können auch deutsch sprechen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the point of your message. The question is whether the edit at issue violated an ArbCom restriction. Whether the intent or effect of the edit was an improvement or not does not matter for the purpose of that question. ArbCom restrictions, like bans, apply to both "good" and "bad" edits. See generally WP:BMB. Sandstein 07:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My question is simpler. I believe that article quality is of prime importance for the project, and of a higher value than rules and restrictions. - If a restriction is in the way of improving quality, something seems to be wrong with the restriction, no? - (It would get us to far to discuss the merits of BMB.) - If I see an article improved, I click the thank-you-button, I don't go and ask for a revert. - If I would be asked to revert a good edit because of a restriction I would not do it. (This is theory, I don't get asked, I get reverted without asking.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you think that the restriction is in the way of improving Wikipedia, you'd need to take this up with the Arbitration Committee who imposed the restriction for what I assume are good reasons. My job as enforcing administrator isn't to second-guess the Committee's decisions, which are binding, but to give them effect as they are written. Sandstein 08:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I was restricted without reasons given, good or bad. "Take it up" with the same people who imposed it? See also. - Effect written is "infobox", not "template infobox". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, the ArbCom is our supreme dispute resolution authority. They may not always be right, but they have the last word. If you disagree with their decisions, it's them you need to convince, not me or anybody else. Sandstein 10:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(Well, yes, it helped a lot to have worked on Kafka to handle the socalled infoboxes case ;) - I will not waste more time, convincing them or whatever. I said I can die with my restrictions, senseless as I think they are, and I mean it. When editors died in April, I reflected that in case I die my user page will we be left with the unresolved red wounds of the case, and thought of changing that, but see above, no more waste of time.) - Can I convince you that Andy did not breach the letter of his restriction (infobox, not template infobox), and some apologies are in order? (Coincidentally: I just updated Bach cantata Vergnügte Ruh, beliebte Seelenlust, BWV 170, reading "better justice than the justice of merely observing laws and rules (Matthew 5:20–26)", - made me smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The current enforcement request should be discussed at WP:AE, not here. I've already offered my opinion there. Sandstein 11:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification now archived

The request for clarification relating to the Pseudoscience case has been archived --S Philbrick (Talk) 16:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Game of Thrones season 1 soundtrack cover

Hi, could you please rename the following image which was uploaded by you File:Game of Thrones (soundtrack) cover.jpg to Game of Thrones (season 1 soundtrack) cover.jpg? I am uploading the covers of the other soundtracks and it would be easier to classify each picture

I don't think that's necessary or appropriate; the album is titled just "Game of Thrones". Also, please remember that you may not use fair use images outside of mainspace. Sandstein 05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Socking

What do I do next? It was just confirmed that he was socking. Do I open up an AE? AcidSnow (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No need, I've imposed an indefinite block based on the SPI result. Sandstein 19:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed restoration of "Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" page

Hi, I am writing to ask if it would be possible to discuss the restoration of a deleted page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-SSRI_sexual_dysfunction

The instructions on Wikipedia say that I should first speak to the administrator who deleted it. I hope that I am correct in doing so.

Since the article was deleted in January 2014, the original author has come forward and addressed, in detail, the various criticisms that led to the article's deletion. It turns out that a number of statements made in the deletion discussion were incorrect. Additional peer-reviewed material has also been published.

I would be happy to provide details/links. Thanks. Hhk89 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of a lack of WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Can you provide such sources that were not already discussed in the deletion discussion? Sandstein 19:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The deletion discussion singled out a particular paper from Dr Bahrick. A number of criticisms were incorrect:

It did not require only a single peer reviewer. The journal uses a “single blind” review policy ie. multiple reviewers know the identity of the author, but not vice versa.

It is not the sole publication on which Dr Bahrick has served as lead author.

Dr Bahrick is a licensed PhD Psychologist and experienced researcher, with direct access to a large number of SSRI users, and not simply a “student health centre councelor”.

The “speculative” articles on premature ejaculation were large, placebo-controlled studies.

Aside from that, the Wikipedia PSSD page was full of Pubmed references from credible journals that I would have expected to be WP:MEDRS compliant, including Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, and the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

The case reports did not come from a single academic group as stated in the deletion discussion.

A new peer-reviewed article has since been published in the Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine. “120 cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhk89 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm, in my view, claiming that the deletion discussion got it wrong is not helpful, because on Wikipedia, consensus is what matters, no matter whether it's right or wrong. The only possible argument for restoration might be the new article you cite, but I lack the medical knowledge to evaluate it. I'm asking the advice of Formerly 98, who nominated the article for deletion. Sandstein 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this is a very troubling issue for those involved, and it is not my intention to be insensitive. I'll mention that HhK89 has mischaracterized some of my prior statements above, but since most of these mischaracterizations are not critical to the discussion, will not address these one by one. Mainly I'll just point out that demonstrating that SSRIs are useful for the treatment of premature ejaculation is not really evidence that they cause a permanent post-treatment sexual disorder including impotence and loss of libido, so I think that particular point is irrelevant.

The article was nominated for deletion based on two issues

Lack of MEDRS compliant sourcing: The article contained only a single nominally secondary source, and that was in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal and thus not MEDRS compliant. The author, Dr. Bahrick, is closely associated with the research group that published most of the 20 or so case reports published up to that time. So this "secondary source" did not really provide the outside validation of primary research that is at the heart of the MEDRS requirement for secondary sources.

Undue weight. Worldwide, somewhere between 100 and 500 million people have taken SSRIs. At the time, there were 20 peer-reviewed case reports of this hypothesized syndrome in the medical literature. (Case reports are not allowed as sources by MEDRS). Thus we had a separate article on a putative side effects that is non-life threatening, of unestablished causation, and apparent extreme rarity.

David Healy has been very critical of the decision to remove this article. There used to be a lengthy article here on David's website criticizing specific wikipedia editors for their role in this decision, but the commentary seems to have been removed. Healy contacted me personally about the removal of the Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction Wikipedia article by email requesting a phone discussion, and I believe that his submission of the review article cited by Hhk89, the removal of critical comments about Wikipedia editors on David's website, and this request may be components of a coordinated campaign.

This being said, David did succeed in getting his review article published in a peer-reviewed, MEDLINE indexed journal. What I am unclear on is whether this review article still counts for the purposes of MEDRS as a reliable source if was written as part of a campaign in concert with the author of the removed Wikipedia article to get that article restored. I'll let others decide on that.

The issue of undue weight still stands in my opinion. David has collected 120 case reports of supposed drug-induced permanent sexual dysfunction (across three drug classes, not just SSRIs) and collected them into a review. These are still case reports, not results from a randomized trial, or even a cohort study. And there are only <120 of them among the several hundred million people who have taken SSRIs. Does this rise to the level of needing a separate article? EVERY drug has troubling or even fatal side effects that occur at a rate of one per every few hundred thousand patients. Shall we have articles on each of them?

The symptoms experienced by these individuals are unfortunate and sad, but very rare, not life-threatening, and of unproven causation. I have not and do not object to a brief mention of this proposed syndrome in the SSRI article, but think it undue weight to have a separate article. I'd also suggest that if David's article is used as a source, the article should mention his financial conflicts of interest, as he runs a web based "Adverse drug effect consultation service"[10] through his website. This page contains an advertisement of Healy's availability as a paid expert witness (Item #3). Formerly 98 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Formerly 98. Hhk89, because this article seems to have a complicated and problematic history, I am of the view that it should only be restored after consensus to do so is obtained at WP:DRV. Sandstein 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hhk89 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Hi Sandstein. I think User:Uishaki may have a point in their current unblock appeal - the timestamps show that they have not edited anything regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict since being informed of the topic ban. There was no consensus in the arbitration result to block this user, so I'm not clear on why you've done so. I'm assuming that I've missed some element of the arb case or the editing history; could you expand on your reasoning for the block, please? Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I too am interested (and concur with Yunshui's assessment of the situation). If you could ping me when responding to Yunshui, I'd be most grateful. Nick (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui and Nick: Thanks - the block was made in error, I misread the timestamps of the last edits and the topic ban, respectively. I have undone the block and the log entry. Sandstein 11:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jolly decent of you. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)