Khodabandeh14 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
:You're right that you may not reveal names or other private information onwiki. Please don't send the evidence and the request for enforcement to me, but to the Arbitration Committee, as described at [[Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee]]. They are set up to handle confidential evidence, I'm not. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
:You're right that you may not reveal names or other private information onwiki. Please don't send the evidence and the request for enforcement to me, but to the Arbitration Committee, as described at [[Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee]]. They are set up to handle confidential evidence, I'm not. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Some of the names were revealed in the Russian Wikipedia and one post actually connects again the user in question with his username. However, I will go through the relavent admins whose names were mentioned in the online list first.--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
::Some of the names were revealed in the Russian Wikipedia and one post actually connects again the user in question with his username. However, I will go through the relavent admins whose names were mentioned in the online list first.--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
*BTW This is another quote from the same wikilist: ''You and others know well that I support tough stance on Armenians, until they leave not only Karabakh but also territories of former Iravan khanate. They have historically proven '''not to be a trustworthy nation''', '''should always be kept as servant/dependent people''', and not allowed to resettle in any other part of Azerbaijan.''. I will with relavent admins as there is no point in discussing any topic with such a user who has such views. Note the Russian wikipedia list also which was discovered also directly connects the person with his wikipedia account. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:32, 23 April 2011
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or 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.
Qantasplanes
Qantasplanes (talk · contribs) has repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia over a long period of time. See this page blanking on 09:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC). And vandalism on 06:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC). More vandalism here.at 10:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC). He then vandalized here on 07:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC), prompting a level 3 warning from Dave1185 (talk · contribs).
Today, he vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7, which you closed, changing the result from "delete" to "keep". He claims this was an accident, which is very unlikely, given his past behavior.
Would you indefinitely block this user for repeated disruption and vandalism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it later. Sandstein 10:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Closing of AfD on Fictional fictional character
Hello. I see that you've recently closed the AfD for Fictional fictional character with a consensus for delete. However, the article has been made into a redirect. Could you please delete it for me? I've looked at the article's history, which now only seems to have one entry--Anthony Appleyard made a redirect. Has he re-created the article as a redirect after its deletion? I don't know how these things work. Many thanks, • DP • {huh?} 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the article has been deleted all right, but has been recreated as a redirect. It would take a WP:RfD to delete it. Sandstein 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Looks like Anthony Appleyard is simply trying to ignore the outcome. Why isn't the consensus reached enforcable? Many thansk, • DP • {huh?} 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus was to delete the article. Whether there should be a redirect of the same name is a different matter, not covered by the AfD consensus. Sandstein 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I think someone could just change it into a redirect to Fictional character. There's really no reason why it should redirect to a closed AfD discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, thanks, I did not neven notice that the redirect target was the AfD. Some other editor made that redirect apparently. Changed as suggested with the edit summary: "Changing redirect target to Fictional character, which I think was intended. No crossnamespace redirects. No opinion about whether we need this redirect either..." Sandstein 20:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As I pointed out at the AfD, content was copied to Story within a story in August 2010. Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material, attribution must be provided for that copied content, through restoring Fictional fictional character's history or an alternative from WP:Merge and delete. I agree that the demonstrated consensus is for deletion, but Wikipedia's attribution requirements must be satisfied. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the policy says that "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted)." This means that attribution can be provided in other form than by undeleting the history. I believe that the link in the history to the deleted page is sufficient attribution in the present circumstances. After all, if somebody really wants to know who wrote this text, an admin can easily provide the deleted history. Sandstein 05:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution is the relevant section. Having to request the history from an admin or at WP:Requests for undeletion is not acceptable. As I've pointed out, there are ways of removing the page from article space, such as Talk:69 (sex position)/List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if you could possibly consider relisting this AfD rather than closing it as no consensus? I realize that when the nominator is the only delete !vote, it really can't close as delete, even if all the keep arguments are not exactly acceptable, but it's only been open a week, and maybe some more actual arguments (from either side) may come in if it's relisted? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend that you just relist it after a few months or so. This might yield some more useful opinions (keep or delete) to begin with. Sandstein 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I agree with the general idea, would you be willing to amend the closure to read something along the lines of "no prejudice against a future renomination" or something like that? I only ask because this is now the articles 3rd AfD, and both this one and the previous one drew keep !voters arguing it should be kept because it was kept in the past. I explained the rationale behind the renomination in this 3rd AfD and luckily the editor understood and changed their argument, but often (as in the case of the second AfD) editors are willing to ignore this logic.
Basically, each time the AfD, comes up there are !voters who argue it should be kept because of the past AfDs or because of sources that are not independent, and by the time I've finished explaining why this isn't an acceptable argument the AfD closes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- My authority as closing admin does not extend to deciding how many AfDs may be started about an article. But if anybody complains, you can point them to this thread, for what it's worth. Sandstein 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Alrighty, thanks, I'll probably link to this on the closed AfD's talk page just for future reference.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- My authority as closing admin does not extend to deciding how many AfDs may be started about an article. But if anybody complains, you can point them to this thread, for what it's worth. Sandstein 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I agree with the general idea, would you be willing to amend the closure to read something along the lines of "no prejudice against a future renomination" or something like that? I only ask because this is now the articles 3rd AfD, and both this one and the previous one drew keep !voters arguing it should be kept because it was kept in the past. I explained the rationale behind the renomination in this 3rd AfD and luckily the editor understood and changed their argument, but often (as in the case of the second AfD) editors are willing to ignore this logic.
APCOA Parking
Hello Sandstein. I see you have deleted the APCOA page which I welcome of course as I had been the nominator. There were just two things which confused me, the first was that the voting seemed to favour the keep campaign by 3-2. I thought the count stood for something. The other thing was that you mentioned my points about the bad nature of the company were not taken into account, so this has made me curious: what exactly were the grounds for the deletion? Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. My closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APCOA Parking as "delete" was in error. I seem to have clicked the wrong button. The result was of course "keep". I have corrected the mistake. Sandstein 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. If the article satisfies the criteria, it should stay. I do feel however that the negative coverage should be allowed to occupy the page in the event of it staying; including references to their squalid bullying excercises which I hope will encourage unsuspecting British residents to repudiate the so-called parking charges. I believe I cannot use forums as a reliable source but I am sure I can find other positive information on this. After all, Wikipedia delves into deep topical issues such as law and medicine and many other things. Do you have any objections to this? Please let me know. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- All right. I believe your approach to this subject is incompatible with WP:NPOV. This policy requires us to cover all subjects neutrally, no matter how we personally feel about them. Negative information may (and indeed should) be included in an article to the extent, and only to the extent, it is reflected in reliable sources, and the amount of negative information must be proportionate to its prevalence in coverage of the subject in reliable sources (see WP:UNDUE). I have already removed defamatory statements by you about the company from the AfD. Please do not make similar statements in the article. Any negative information must be referenced to a reliable source. Please do not use any forums, opinion columns, self-published webpages or other unreliable sources. Sandstein 06:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. If the article satisfies the criteria, it should stay. I do feel however that the negative coverage should be allowed to occupy the page in the event of it staying; including references to their squalid bullying excercises which I hope will encourage unsuspecting British residents to repudiate the so-called parking charges. I believe I cannot use forums as a reliable source but I am sure I can find other positive information on this. After all, Wikipedia delves into deep topical issues such as law and medicine and many other things. Do you have any objections to this? Please let me know. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know the rules. I was never planning on using forums as a source and I had no intention of being disproportionate. However, the fact that the company uses illicit bullying tactics is a fact and the remark is is no way defamatory. If that were so, they can prosecute me. The key word is illicit which means illegal. If indeed I am guilty of slander then it must be proven that their squalid attempts at extortion and dealings with crooked law firms and collection agencies and overall treatment of unsuspecting motorists with their so-called parking charge notices which do not reflect loss of profit are all legal. And that will never happen so I have no fear of publishing these things. I think what you were trying to say was not that my remarks were defamatory but damaging to the company. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Off wiki coordination
Hi Sandstein, In case I have to, where do I report an off-wiki English coordination group which shows clear connection between some users and their editing behaviour? In it, some admins where called "Armenians" and "Kurdish bigot", and it talked about "spanking" other admins. Some of the users have been permanently banned from some articles, and have been in two arbcomms (this list was not releaved during the arbcomm). I am wondering if a user off-wiki talks about "Spanking admins" and calls an admin a "bigot Kurd", is that sufficient for official ban of all the AA articles? Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Either WP:AE or WP:ARBCOM, I suggest. That's where the last such case, WP:EEML, ended up. But merely attacking Wikipedians offsite is not sanctionable on-wiki. We have no jurisdiction over what people do off-wiki, except in extreme cases of harrassment etc. You'd need evidence for either that or active coordination of edits in a manner that would be improper on-wiki. Sandstein 16:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is asking for votes on a topic for a POV push improper behaviour? For now I will just let the relavent admins know about talking behind their back and off-wiki coordination. Perhaps they will take sufficient actions if not, I will open it up on WP:AE. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be improper conduct, see Wikipedia:EEML#Off-wiki communication. Sandstein 17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can the ban take place through showing this evidence off-line to the relavent admins or do I need to open an AE? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I personally would insist on an AE thread in oder to have a transparent discussion, but other admins may have different opinions. Sandstein 17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can the ban take place through showing this evidence off-line to the relavent admins or do I need to open an AE? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be improper conduct, see Wikipedia:EEML#Off-wiki communication. Sandstein 17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is asking for votes on a topic for a POV push improper behaviour? For now I will just let the relavent admins know about talking behind their back and off-wiki coordination. Perhaps they will take sufficient actions if not, I will open it up on WP:AE. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
However would this violate privacy guidelines of Wikipedia since it reveals the names of some wiki users? Note I would like to just cut & paste some of the comments of the user in question here:
- "Come on guys, I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. But there are certain bounds of diplomatic reason and logic in dealing with enemy, «toporniye» approaches result in what Turks are suffering from today with allegations of armocide. ....."
- "Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others. «Turk is a master of his destiny», the old saying goes."
- "Can you imagine how this annuls anything we say promoting tolerance and religious ethnic synergy in Azerbaijan, while pointing and blaming Armenia? Especially given that Melkonian was a U.S. citizen, can you imagine the scale of damage if Armenians get their hand to this material?? We will never recover from it!"
Wikipedia related (I have evidence for canvassing for vote coordination on Safavids from this user):
- Off-wiki coordination to get votes: "Guys, visit [1] ASAP and cast your votes in Satisfactory section. Mardavich has
organized survey attempting to foil the article." The email went out to " azwikis@googlegroups.com".
- "I would follow GM’s suggestion not to exacerbate any admin, even Dmcdevit. I personally can’t stand that bigot Kurd Khoikhoi, but we have to work with all of them and drag them to our side."
- "Guys I am totally blocked by Dmcdevit. He claimed that he blocked warring parties, but in fact he only blocked me, both Nareklm and Mardavich are freely editing Safavid Dynasty page. ..How can you post request for arbitration. I think Dmcdevit is Armenian, if so we are screwed."
This is some of the wikipedia online comments of the same user:
- "general pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development"[2]
- "You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at."[3]
- "Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich." [4]
Anyhow, I have evidence to present that the user seeked votes on Safavid article from this list. Few other users (some inactive) have also been involved in that list. I would like to post the evidence in AE, but I am not sure if Wikipedia allows revealing names from the group list. So may I send it to you privately? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're right that you may not reveal names or other private information onwiki. Please don't send the evidence and the request for enforcement to me, but to the Arbitration Committee, as described at Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee. They are set up to handle confidential evidence, I'm not. Sandstein 18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the names were revealed in the Russian Wikipedia and one post actually connects again the user in question with his username. However, I will go through the relavent admins whose names were mentioned in the online list first.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- BTW This is another quote from the same wikilist: You and others know well that I support tough stance on Armenians, until they leave not only Karabakh but also territories of former Iravan khanate. They have historically proven not to be a trustworthy nation, should always be kept as servant/dependent people, and not allowed to resettle in any other part of Azerbaijan.. I will with relavent admins as there is no point in discussing any topic with such a user who has such views. Note the Russian wikipedia list also which was discovered also directly connects the person with his wikipedia account. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)