User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:48, 18 April 2011

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: [[example article]].

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

Start a new talk topic

Edit war potential

Lameness attended to.

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

Before this becomes an edit war, I was hoping to have some type of intervention at the page Talk:Mexican-American War.

The original wording of a subsection added by Tony1 was politely requesting comments. Allen3 modified the subsection slightly to tell people to 'drop the stick and walk away from the horse'. This change was undone by Tony1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423710083&oldid=423705214

Later, the language was added back into an additional subsection with the same language, which I modified to make it more in line with a civil and polite request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423723268&oldid=423717189

This was then reverted by Allen3, who was insisting that the changing the title of a subsection requesting comments should be considered "editing of comments" and an implied breach of Talkpage etiquette.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423725398&oldid=423723268

I then put back the more civil language, letting Allen3 know that such requests need to be civil and can't be claimed to be comments if they are being arranged in a way to become a 'request for comment' process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&diff=423726730&oldid=423725398

Thank you. --Avanu (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Lameness continues, please take a look at User_talk:Noetica#More_Mexican.7EAmerican_War and User_talk:Kwamikagami#dash_moves_related_to_Mexican.E2.80.93American_War. I could do with some advice about how to proceed. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but the lameness was fixed by Sandstein. The other stuff is just the normal ridiculous debate over whether to use a hyphen or dash in the title. Let's not confuse a legitimate (yet incredibly long and tedious) debate with a problem that needs an admin solution. -- Avanu (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the warnings against edit-warring at MOS:STABILITY, I think that this requires admin intervention. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enric Naval, can you tell me here, concisely and with diffs, what the problem is and what you want me to do? Sandstein 16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see, in 15 March the article Mexican–American War was moved from hyphenated form to dashed form because of this move request, and then I changed the name in the text to fit the title[1]. Then Tony reverted my moves [2] (he couldn't move the article because it's move protected. Then PMAnderson and kwami edit-warred about it [3][4][5][6][7] (with another editor joining in the fray [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexican-American_War&diff=419406218&oldid=419404306)

Then PMAnderson was blocked for edit-warring because he had a story of being blocked for edit-warring here, while kwami went away with nothing. Then kwami opened a RM to revert back to the dashed form[8].

Days later in 24 March, while the second RM was still open. Cwenger tried again to remove the dashes to fit the title[9], Tony1 reverted again, claiming a lot of things[10]

Then the RM was finally closed in 4 April, saying that there was no consensus to revert the move. So, 8 days later, in 12 April I tried to change again the text to fit the title[11]. I was reverted by Tony1[12], someone else reverted him citing consistency with current title,[13] and Tony1 reverted again[14]. So, I reverted him and left him an edit-warring warning[15], and Tony1 warns me against "pushing my personal POV"[16] but at least he stops reverting and he opens a discussion to gather consensus[17]. And then Noetica restored the dashes again [18] , and I have warned him that "Please restore the hyphen yourself or I'll have to report you to the edit warring noticeboard"[19].

Meanwhile, Cwenger, edits a related article that has the same name in the title, inserting a hyphen to fit the main article. And then, Kwami, the guy who opened the second RM that didn't get consensus, edits that article to insert dashes instead of hypehn, when that article has never had dashes in the name, and when he couldn't gather consensus to move the title of the main article from hyphen to dash. So, I have warned him about WP:POINTy edit-warring with stylistic issues, which happens to be very forbidden by MOS:STABILITY, which cites four arbitration cases to support it.

So, please give a final warning to Noetica, Kwami and Tony1 for edit-warring over stylistic issies (violating MOS:STABILITY) and making edits that go against consensus in talk pages and against two move requests. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this looks like an edit war might be going on there, but the issue (a hyphen or an en dash?) looks so incredibly lame to me that I really don't feel that the half an hour I would need to look at this and issue warnings, blocks etc. would be time well spent. Normal readers do not notice, much less care, whether there are a thousand back-and-forth reverts about hyphenation. I recommend that you take it to WP:AN3 if you think that there is an actionable edit-warring case. Maybe another admin will take action despite the lameness of the whole issue. Or maybe you and everybody else could just drop it and edit something more, er, immediately useful? Sandstein 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enric's description hardly touches the surface. This dispute has periodically flared since at least 2007. At that time, the en dash was breaking the MediaWiki software (UTF-16 support was not available till MediaWiki version 1.12 in March 2008). Please remember this situation the next time you feel the need to template the regulars before you investigate the facts yourself. Your nastygram has at least given me a reason to distance myself and let a comparatively new Wikipedian, such as yourself, deal with this issue. --Allen3 ^talk 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. Ok, I'll give AN3 a try. As Allen3 says, this seems to be a long term problem, with editors at the MOS page refusing to follow the usage in RS and following instead their preferred usages. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, just for the record, another editor decided to enter in the fray and make another revert, so I have sent him to AN3, and I have posted a general warning in the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, adding back in my wording that *you* removed.

Since you took my civil request for admin guidance and turned it into a cruel joke, I'm going to take out the prior request. I'm truly sorry I didn't know (and still don't) how to contact admins and chose you because I knew you were an admin. The type of responses and the attitude that you're displaying toward this entire affair just disappoint me. -- Avanu (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I removed *my own* comment. And while I acknowledge that this is your talk page and you can do whatever you like here, I don't feel that you honored the spirit of the request I originally made. That was my reason for removing my own comment, and so please don't ask me not to remove other's comments when I simply did not touch anyone else's comments. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, sorry; I should have said: please don't remove comments from other people's talk pages. Sandstein 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What actually would have been nice to hear is an apology for taking something that needed a little help and turning it into a huge distraction. I don't imagine most people like being presented with threats, and that's what happened to me here, thanks to you. My experiences so far on Wikipedia have taught me that a person shouldn't allow situations to escalate, especially with regard to edit warring. One asks for admin help if it appears needed. You've responded over and over how lame you feel this is, and while you are completely entitled to that opinion personally, I hardly see how it is appropriate as an admin. I would like you to advise me on how to contact a completely ininvolved, fair, and neutral admin regarding both the situation at the Mexican-American War page, and your behavior in response. I originally thought being an admin means that you are willing to be thoughtful and patient and helpful. My experiences here have made me question that. I appreciate your cordial and prompt response. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you ask people for their opinion, you take the risk that they do not agree with you. Your dispute about the length of horizontal lines is so silly that it is an embarrassment for all who take part in it, but as soon as it disrupts Wikipedia by leading to edit wars, administrators need to intervene to stop these edit wars. See WP:SEEKHELP for ways in which you can ask others for their help or opinion. Sandstein 05:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not *my* dispute. I have been repeatedly asking them to come up with a solution that they can all agree on. I do appreciate the SEEKHELP link. Thank you. Of course you're more than welcome to have the POV that you have on the discussion, but I'm not sure if you noticed, some of the newer editors in the discussion at AN were finding themselves in the same quandary these editors have been a part of.

If you have 2 reliable sources that directly conflict one another, what do you do? Especially when the limitations of English (and Wikipedia) only permit one answer. (so they can't simply compromise) Well, I think you end up orbiting like these people have been doing. I really believe you probably are a great admin, and that's why I turned to you in the first place, but a harsh hand isn't going to help these folks out. And heck, I don't even care whether they pick one or the other, so I was super shocked you wanted to ban me from such a topic when I am terribly neutral on it. Anyway, I wish you well, and have to admit, you've made me a bit skittish of seeking help at your door again, but regardless, I won't let this incident rattle me any longer. Have a great day and best wishes. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem

I have posted on the talk page of the Orontid article, references that indicate they are of Persian ancestry. I posted my information in the Orontid article(not removing any reference stating Armenian ancestry) and only to be blindly reverted by Phoenicians8[20](who has not participated on the talk page. I revert it and stated please discuss on talk page, at which point he appeared to simply allow the Persian ancestry and references to stand. I had also added Persian ancestry and references to the Satrapy of Armenia article. However, he posted on Kevorkmail's talk page[21][22] at which point the Persian ancestry and references was removed from both articles(without the use of the talk page) by Kevorkmail. How can I get these editors to engage in the talk pages? If they can remove the Persian ancestry and references they will not waste their time on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please re-phrase this to include all relevant wikilinks and diffs? Sandstein 05:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenicians8 is mass-canvassing numerous other editors[23][24][25][26](I guess of Armenian ethnicity) along with using numerous anon IPs to canvass as well.

Along with this he removed the university sources added to the article Satrapy of Armenia and calls them, "POV and unreliable/misinformation sources"[27], this without, of course any discussion.

On the article Orontid dynasty, I have been reverted numerous times all by editors that have not engaged in discussion.[28][29][30].

So as it stands currently, none of the sources I added remain. As long as my sources are not in the article, none of the editors involved in removing my sources will waste the time on the talk page. Suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should ban me immediately. Apparently mass canvassing by Phoenicans8 and his numerous IPs is sanctioned. Let me know when my ban expires and I might return to adding university reference to articles on wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sandstein. I know your busy but that was not the appropriate response to Kansas Bear as he is the top user fighting vandalism and ethnic nationalistic edits in many pages. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I currently have little time for Wikipedia and cannot examine this issue further. Please see WP:SEEKHELP or WP:AE to request that another admin examine this situation, if you think action is warranted. Sandstein 05:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of invoking identity which creates an unfriendly editing atmosphere

Hi, a new user which claims the genocides in the Ottoman empire is madeup and alleged: [31] is contantly referencing the backgorund of editors which is in violation of Wikipedia is not a battle ground:

I have asked already to desist in point out user's ethnic background but he did not stop. "Please watch WP:Attack, referening to users' ethnic background and claiming they are bias because of it, is a personal attack. This is to note that the Azerbaijan-Armenia arbcom takes this issue very seriously and so you just have been warned about mixing user's background into the discussion." (April 6) [32]

But he continued:

[33]: "The other editors of the article who are coincidentally Persian are denying me the right to edit the article " (note the user went canvassing on several user's talkpage whom he believed shares ethno-linguistic connections to himself).
[34]: "Then about 17 minutes later an administrator called Khoikhoi (who I belive is also Iranian) put an edit block on the page due to "edit warring" this block was made coincidentally after Kurdo777's revert of my contribution." (Note the administrator in question is not Iranian)
He also called a Professor that was born in Brooklyn and is of non-Iranian background as Iranian. I quote him: ". Now if we were to investigate the reliability of Nikki Keddie we can see that she is an Iranian professor..." [35]. Note the said person is also not Iranian [36].

I have asked him once to stop pointing out the user's background and admin's background [37] . Note once in a while there could be a biased author due to their own background (nationalist writers), but Nikki R. Keddie who is a full professor of UCLA is neither Iranian nor biased (rather it is mainstream Western source). This sort of battle-field mentality by the user is in violation of Wikipedia rulers. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell me at least the username of the user in question. Please use the template {{userlinks}}. And please provide WP:DIFFs for each claim that you or the other person wrote something. Sandstein 17:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the diffs above. The user name is: Tugrulirmak (talk · contribs). [38] which from the start seems to have just worked on these sort of issues (seems like an SPA). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)::On a side note, can you please look at this case: [39], the sock-puppetry was established for the two accounts of Calmar1996 (talk · contribs) and Amhvj (talk · contribs). The original sock-master had already been banned. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I currently have little time for Wikipedia and cannot examine this issue further. Please see WP:SEEKHELP or WP:AE to request that another admin examine this situation, if you think action is warranted. Sandstein 05:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring clarification - a month later (let's finish what we've started)

We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be useful to codify this in policy, and have replied there. Sandstein 05:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and Southern Baptist Convention

Following the recent attempt to delete the entire British America article, your attention to the editing practices being imposed on these articles by user Novaseminary would be helpful. What do these 3 subjects have in common other than Novaseminary's involvement? The history of Baptist religion in the Americas from the 1600s to the present, weak historical knowledge and overzealous deletion impulses by Novaseminary. The Southern Baptist denomination doesn't even begin until the mid-19th century, yet that article includes a section on "colonial" era issues that is biased exclusively towards attention to Baptist churches in the southern United States. Either the entire colonial section should be deleted from that SBC article or the "colonial" section should include a historical narrative that is not regionally biased. I've gotten tired of donating my time to improving these articles only to be harrassed and frustrated by Novaseminary's abusive editorial practices. Thank you for your help on this.

Sorry, I currently have little time for Wikipedia and cannot examine this issue in detail. Please see WP:SEEKHELP for ways in which you can seek the input of others. Regards, Sandstein 06:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

Avanu has been banned from posting on my talk page for using it to launch attacks on you. Please do not respond on my talk page. I just wanted you to know in case this is a pattern of behavior or factors into anything else that may be going on between the two of you that I don't know about. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Sven's talk page because I feel that a personal conversation can often be more productive. It was never my intent to offend him, and I've indicated that I will not post there again. He made several comments on the AN about my behavior and rather than muddle the discussion with those, I felt a personal discussion was the best thing. Apparently not. This same technique has worked well with Lothar, who is also a part of that AN discussion. -- Avanu (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, I misread the situation completely. Avanu left a large set of bolded text in the middle of his/her statement, and I misinterpreted it as him/her calling you those things. Instead it appears Avanu was quoting the AN thread. Nevermind. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me

(Message containing e-mail address removed)

Hi, sorry that I apparently did not receive or respond to your mails. They may have gotten stuck in the Foundation's WP:OTRS e-mail interface somehow, which isn't very user-friendly. I'll get back to you per e-mail. Sandstein 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...keeps going

User:24.85.232.175 and User:GiW are continuing the naming edit wars on Polish-Lithuanian articles: Władysław Syrokomla, Švitrigaila, Vilnius, Simonas Daukantas, Bernardine Cemetary, Vilkaviskis and probably a few others.

Do I need to file an AE report or can you just give them the "standard warning".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked (almost only reverts) and editor warned. Sandstein 06:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that IP is very likely a banned editor, will investigate further. Sandstein 06:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your message. There was one more anonymous IP involved in the action (24.114.238.202). I noticed that both IP's are from the same city: [40], [41]. So it looks like to be IP-hopping. Both IP's were used just for edit warring, so imho, they should be banned for more than three days. Btw, some contributions of the banned IP are still unreverted: Władysław Syrokomla, Simonas Daukantas, Bernardine Cemetary, Antakalnis Cemetery, Vilkaviškis. So I wonder if I can revert them now? GiW (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. If I determine that the IP(s) edited in violation of a ban, I'll revert them myself after taking the appropriate action against the ban evader. Sandstein 16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the IP. However, take a look at GiW's edit history as well. It's all minor edits, cat sorting and assessment (stuff that doesn't require "talking" but builds a sort of an "edit history") and several copy/pasted copy vio articles ([42])- and then all of sudden he jumps into these edit wars out of nowhere. The user also avoids any kind of discussion or even making a statement that is longer than a few words.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the warning. Sandstein 16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for 72 hours for disruption

Those guys are refusing to discuss anything with me.

Bigks diff is just baloney. I have supplied citations from the most prestigious central bank economists and central bankers in the english speaking world and endless other citations from the last 40 years from other central bankers. All he wants is a page that reflects what he wants to see and with your cooperation that is exactly what he is getting.

They are gaming the system and taking you down with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewedwardjudd (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP Edits - Jacurek

Hi Sandstain, My cousin made the IP edits you are investigating right now therefore some IP's may cross. I did not ask him to do it but I realize that this does not look good. Please do whatever you think is nessesaryy couse I'm done with Wikipiedia anyway. Thanks.Jacurek (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]