→Question: new section |
Jake Fuersturm (talk | contribs) →Question: + |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
I am writing this to you because you were the admin the blocked me about 3 weeks ago for being uncivil. Can you take a look at the discussion I am involved in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jake_Fuersturm here] and tell me why it is that this user can get away with being over POINTy, violating 3RR, starting mutiple edit wars, ignoring Wikipedia policy, and calling other editors various names while leveling various accusations and deflecting blame while Mindbunny got blocked for calling Robert Mugabe what he called him on his talk page? I took my block to heart and have tried to reset myself to what I know to be right, but I am really curious how it's possible that this editor can "get away" with this type of behavior, while others cannot. Thanks. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
I am writing this to you because you were the admin the blocked me about 3 weeks ago for being uncivil. Can you take a look at the discussion I am involved in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jake_Fuersturm here] and tell me why it is that this user can get away with being over POINTy, violating 3RR, starting mutiple edit wars, ignoring Wikipedia policy, and calling other editors various names while leveling various accusations and deflecting blame while Mindbunny got blocked for calling Robert Mugabe what he called him on his talk page? I took my block to heart and have tried to reset myself to what I know to be right, but I am really curious how it's possible that this editor can "get away" with this type of behavior, while others cannot. Thanks. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:FYI - a neutral third party [[user:Gerardw]] has proposed a solution which I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=431896806] accepted promptly and unconditionally, whereas [[user:Erikeltic]] "accepted" with a huge list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&curid=1573552&diff=431898431&oldid=431896806 pre-conditions]. |
|||
:Since Erik rejected Gerard's proposal, I have since attempted to bridge with my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=431905419 own proposal] but which Erik has refused to even respond to. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:29, 31 May 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.
Flying Fische
Flying Fische (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked earlier this month for deleting article maintenence tags without rectifying the problems mentioned, is still at it – there also seems to be a very serious underlying competence/disruption issue: for instance, a notification that one of their articles has been nominated for deletion was met with a response of, "No. DO IT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS," ('SHOUTING CAPITALS' is something that I've cautioned them about before) followed by an accusation of vandalism, which is another pattern; for instance, they recently re-inserted unsourced content about a living person with an edit summary labelling it as vandalism.
Just a week ago they were warned for repeatedly deleting [1] [2] BLP PROD tags without adding the requisite reliable sources, and obviously more general disruption ensued.
I think that given this behaviour, with particular regard to their absolute refusal to adhere to the BLP policy, a further block is in order? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked indef for persistent disruption. Sandstein 13:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- @TT - Be nice if you checked for references before you
removedcomplained about the reinsertion of that material. Typing both names into google gives alot of joint pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)- I did not complain about the re-insertion, as is very clear from my comment above. I complained about the edit-summary labelling its deletion by Hrafn (talk · contribs) as 'vandalism'. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 13:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, but you are reinforcing a battlefield mentality here, so Flyingfische makes an ill-conceived comment, time to 'go after' the editor then. As well as the concept of you calling someone out on the adverse presentation of their communication. Strikes me as a hypocritical action given complaints by others of your interactions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you are criticising me for "going after" an editor who has no regard for WP:BLP, no regard for WP:NOTVAND, no regard for WP:BLPPROD, no regard for WP:NPA, no regard for WP:CANVASS and no regard for WP:V, then I can only recommend that you re-examine your position. Incidentally, I also wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting on every issue where my name appears on your watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I notice the Norma Percy article is still there, and ermm, you labelled his edits as vandalism - he removed a tag but he added information, which you removed. And he did finally add a source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- So Sandstein, what about TT reverting his edits (which included adding of material) as vandalism then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I used the rollback tool to revert Flying's removal of a WP:BLPPROD tag. Removing BLPPROD tags without adding a reliable source is vandalism. Incidentally, I also wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting and attempting to get me sanctioned/blocked on every issue where my name appears on your watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- So don't use an automated tool if it is going to misrepresent your actions in any way in a tense or volatile situation. And avoid getting into confrontations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:VANDTYPES, "removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content" is defined as vandalism, so the rollback as vandalism was correct insofar as it reverted the removal of the BLPPROD tag. It was not correct insofar as it reverted the addition of content, which was not vandalism. TreasuryTag, please do not use the rollback tool to remove non-vandalistic content again, or I will remove your rollback access. Casliber, I would prefer it if you would continue any conversation you wish to have with TreasuryTag somewhere else. Sandstein 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- So don't use an automated tool if it is going to misrepresent your actions in any way in a tense or volatile situation. And avoid getting into confrontations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I used the rollback tool to revert Flying's removal of a WP:BLPPROD tag. Removing BLPPROD tags without adding a reliable source is vandalism. Incidentally, I also wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting and attempting to get me sanctioned/blocked on every issue where my name appears on your watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you are criticising me for "going after" an editor who has no regard for WP:BLP, no regard for WP:NOTVAND, no regard for WP:BLPPROD, no regard for WP:NPA, no regard for WP:CANVASS and no regard for WP:V, then I can only recommend that you re-examine your position. Incidentally, I also wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting on every issue where my name appears on your watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, but you are reinforcing a battlefield mentality here, so Flyingfische makes an ill-conceived comment, time to 'go after' the editor then. As well as the concept of you calling someone out on the adverse presentation of their communication. Strikes me as a hypocritical action given complaints by others of your interactions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I did not complain about the re-insertion, as is very clear from my comment above. I complained about the edit-summary labelling its deletion by Hrafn (talk · contribs) as 'vandalism'. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 13:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- @TT - Be nice if you checked for references before you
- Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- < I was under the impression that reverting vandalism was precisely what the rollback tool was for, but whatever, sure. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but of the three edits you reverted, only one was vandalism. You were not allowed to use rollback to revert the other two. Sandstein 15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- The rollback tool automatically reverts to the last revision by someone other than the editor being undone, and I understood that it was common practice to revert such blatant BLP vandalism using the tool even if that involved deleting 'non-vandalistic' content – which in this case was unreferenced information about a living person, so not altogether acceptable anyway. However, I will be more careful in future if that is your wish. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 19:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, nice translation! as far as I know the drawing is quite sure by Michelangelo himself, while it's uncertain he did painted the same subject in oil and it is most uncertain that that painting still exists. The one they found in America, you can see the image, is quite low in quality, especially in faces and hands... comparing to the drawing, anyone can see the difference. unless they find something hidden with restoration it will be quite hard to prove that panting is Michelangelo's ;) --Sailko (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sorry, another question: when you write ma è descritta da Ascanio Condivi, do you mean that the drawing or the (presumably lost) painting is described by Condivi? Sandstein 06:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Cabinet of Switzerland
Hi Sandstein,
Thank you for approaching me about this move rather than reverting it outright. I am not convinced that the Federal Council of Switzerland is not a cabinet, but "Federal Council of Switzerland" appears to be the far more common name for the organization, so feel free to revert the move.
Neelix (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Well, it is a cabinet, functionally, in that it is a bunch of minister-like officeholders who govern the country, but it is not called a cabinet, ever, by anybody. Sandstein 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Your warning to User:Andreasegde
Andreasegde (talk · contribs) is not a vandal account, although he does get a bit "gobby", but a contributor with FA's and GA's behind him. You were right to warn him, but perhaps it might have been a bit softer? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the warning should have been even harsher. I have higher, not lower, expectations regarding the conduct of experienced editors. Sandstein 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am no fan of WP:DTTR, but, yes, a warning noting that as an experienced and long time contributor that they are expected to know about BLP and have no excuses would still acknowledge their contribution otherwise. Same result, a final warning, but more... orientated toward a result? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean, but there is a certain simplicity and uniformity to template messages that appeals to me. They represent the notion that the rules apply to all of us equally, no matter what our social status in this community is. That's why I intentionally try not to become aware of the social status of the people I warn or block, except insofar as it may have a bearing on my admin action (block log, past warnings, arbitration sanctions etc.) Sandstein 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am no fan of WP:DTTR, but, yes, a warning noting that as an experienced and long time contributor that they are expected to know about BLP and have no excuses would still acknowledge their contribution otherwise. Same result, a final warning, but more... orientated toward a result? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Close of AE Concerning Supreme Deliciousness
Hi Sandstein -
I posted a fairly comprehensive statement of concern (link/snapshot) to EdJohnston's talk page on this matter, and he recommended I ask for your comment. I won't copy that statement here, but would you mind having a look at his page and let interested parties know what you think, wherever you choose to post that evaluation, whether here or at Ed's page?
Briefly, the gist of my concern is that Ed appeared ready to close the request with no action, which other admin comments on the request thread seemed to support, and then had the courtesy to ask AGK if he wished to make any final comment. Instead of doing so, AGK posted on the request page, asking whether Ed favored a topic ban, but then removed that question two hours and forty-five minutes later (before Ed had replied, from what I can see) and proceeded to close the request himself, giving SD a six-month topic ban.
Given AGK's recent and very unusual intervention (snapshot) on a particular highly-controversial editor's behalf, and his remark on that editor's "ostensibly bad record", and a couple of other things I won't mention at this time, this most recent action ... well, I won't say that it rings some alarm bells for me, but it does seem a legitimate cause for concern and for discussion in some appropriate and (ideally) low-drama, non-adjudicative venue. Since it was clear from one of his comments in the AE request that AGK's is rather unfamiliar with ARBPIA/2 − he didn't know that IP edits could be reverted without violating 1rr restrictions (diff / context) − perhaps he's also just not aware of the history of the topic area's prominent dramatis personae, either.
In a nutshell, and unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like AGK raced Ed to the finish line when Ed didn't know it was a race, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he did so in order to enact a sanction that opposed the apparent consensus among admins who commented in the request thread. I'd be very pleased to learn that I'm somehow mistaken, and Ed's being very "meh" about it.
But if that's what happened then it don't seem pretty: I don't see why an editor should be subjected to a six-month topic ban against apparent admin consensus, just because a single admin raced ahead of others to impose it, in what looks like a deliberate attempt to usurp the result to his liking. Again, I'd be pleased to learn that I'm mistaken in how it looks to me. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I've stopped activity in AE because I believe that it is currently a waste of time because of lack of support by the Arbitration Committee. But in general, and without having examined the matter beyond what you write above, discretionary sanctions are not consensus-based actions. They are individual actions by individual administrators, like blocks or protections. An administrator imposing such sanctions is therefore not bound by any other administrator's opinion, let alone consensus. But of course any sanction imposed can be appealed as provided for in the relevant remedy. Sandstein 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote this before Sandstein's above comment, and got an edit conflict; his comment makes clear that he doesn't want to get involved in this. That's a pity, but I respect his point of view. I can see how it would wear down anyone. I also agree with his opinion. (my comment from before the edit conflict, follows)
- I'm rather puzzled by all this too... in fact I find AGK's recent actions in this topic area to be rather puzzling overall, but I am assuming good faith. And AGK did indeed mention (somewhere...) that he prefers to be rather more strict on such matters, to make things fairer overall. He even opened one or two AE cases on this topic himself, I think, although they seem to have been closed without action for some reason.... I wonder what that was about.
- Now, we know that Sandstein
always goes easy with sanctions against people involved in ethic conflictsis the perfect person to bring in to quash people who mess around in arbitration areas, in fact that's how I first met him. I did get the idea that he had decided to take a break from the AE arena, and who can blame him? But, I must still note the humour of someone complaining about an AE admin being overly strict, and deciding to appeal to Sandstein as a "less strict" admin. Ed, you intended the humour, right? :)
- Now, we know that Sandstein
- I will note that the edit notice for this page says "Please do not ask me to take arbitration enforcement action on this talk page". I am guessing a lot of people asked this of Sandstein because he was perceived as being more likely to impose harsher sanctions. How it applies to requests for review of existing sanctions, is quite another matter. Certainly some recent actions have been highly unusual to say the least. That doesn't mean Sandstein is required or forced to deal with them, but I think such actions need review in some forum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Demiurge, the topic is sort of couch surfing right now, wandering around homeless between Ed's talk page, AGK's, and here. Since there does seem to be interest in discussing this, could someone quickly suggest or provide an appropriate centralized location for this discussion to proceed? I just hate those discussions that are strewn across several pages, and almost impossible to follow with any certainty as to who said what, when, for that reason. What's the right location to move this to, before we get so much commentary about this as to make such centralization unfeasible? – OhioStandard (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I suggest that it is not my talk page :-) Seriously, the only appropriate forum I can think of is an appeal discussion initiated by the sanctioned user. If the sanctioned user accepts the sanction and does not appeal it, there is probably nothing to discuss. Sandstein 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Eden Gardens Editing Dispute
Hi Sandstein!! I am sorry for being engaged in an editing dispute but I have tried to resolve the matter using the talk page. The user Shovon was not agreeing with my sources and reverting all my edits. I also requested to semi-protect the page but that was declined. The user Shovon has also been in such dispute with some other before, you can see that in his talk page.
All the sources that I provided were:
SOURCES:
PICTURE SOURCE:
In the picture you will find "CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL" written on the board of the stadium, clearly Cricket Association Of Bengal is the owner of Eden Gardens.
LATEST SOURCE (VIDEO):
Listen to the commentators carefully (Listen them from 00:08:00). They say, "80,000 viewers came to watch this match".
With regards,
Iamgymman123 (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. The point of the policy [[WP:EW] is that you are not allowed to revert others repeatedly even if you are right and even if you provide sources. So the sources you list are not really relevant to the edit-warring problem. Please read WP:EW and WP:DR for further information. Sandstein 05:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Declined AFD of Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation
Hello Sandstein. I filed the AFD you declined. This was my first AFD filed and I think it's safe to say that I'm a newbie when it comes to the bureaucracy behind article deletions, so please excuse my ignorance. I agree that "no consensus" was reached, which according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Afd#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed should mean that the request should be declined. The problem as I see it though, is that the article topic is a fabrication; This also explain why no WP:RS was ever found which supported the basic claim made in the article, i.e. the rality of "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation". I think you understand why I'm not safisfied with the continued existence of this fabrication here on Wikipedia. What options do I have to get rid of this article? Filing another AFD is meaninless due to off-wiki canvassing and the presence of socks. Deletion review does not seem to apply as your deletion reasoning was valid (no consensus). Sincerely, --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will be filing an SPI report about one of the editors involved in that article and AFD shortly. I don't know whether that will change anything but I'll post a link here when I've filed the report. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Frederico1234, I personally have no opinion about whether your assertion that there are no reliable sources describing this topic is correct or not. But as an administrator, I have to advise you that this question is what we call a "content issue", that is, a disagreement that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus (whether at AfD or in a merger discussion on the article talk page), and not a disagreement that can be resolved by fiat of an administrator or any administrative body. So, essentially, it is up to you to seek community consensus for your position that the article should not exist. If you cannot convince enough people of that, the article will continue to exist. See WP:DR for general advice relating to this. If such discussions are tainted by socking or canvassing, then that is something that admins can sanction people for - if you have evidence for it. Sandstein 14:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding sockpuppetets in AFD discussions: Admins can sanction people for sockpuppeting, true, but that doesn't mean the article will go away. The AFD is only open for seven days and there's simply no time have SPIs processed in time. For example, in the AFD for Racism in the Palestinian territories the socks Luckymelon, RolesRoice and AMuseo (creator of the Islamization article) as well as Luckymelons' sockmaster Shuki all voted to keep the article. How are you supposed to reach a consensus in such an atmosphere? This is the reality in the I-P topic area.
- Regarding canvassing: how are you supposed to stop it if the canvassing takes place off-wiki, as was the case here? --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- An article can be renominated for deletion if the discussion is shown to have been influenced by socks. Offwiki canvassing cannot be prevented, but it can be mitigated by the closing administrator, who may discount particularly weak opinions that do not address the policy-based issues raised in the discussion, but are cast in the manner of votes. Sandstein 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the SPI report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- An article can be renominated for deletion if the discussion is shown to have been influenced by socks. Offwiki canvassing cannot be prevented, but it can be mitigated by the closing administrator, who may discount particularly weak opinions that do not address the policy-based issues raised in the discussion, but are cast in the manner of votes. Sandstein 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Frederico1234, I personally have no opinion about whether your assertion that there are no reliable sources describing this topic is correct or not. But as an administrator, I have to advise you that this question is what we call a "content issue", that is, a disagreement that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus (whether at AfD or in a merger discussion on the article talk page), and not a disagreement that can be resolved by fiat of an administrator or any administrative body. So, essentially, it is up to you to seek community consensus for your position that the article should not exist. If you cannot convince enough people of that, the article will continue to exist. See WP:DR for general advice relating to this. If such discussions are tainted by socking or canvassing, then that is something that admins can sanction people for - if you have evidence for it. Sandstein 14:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Question
I am writing this to you because you were the admin the blocked me about 3 weeks ago for being uncivil. Can you take a look at the discussion I am involved in here and tell me why it is that this user can get away with being over POINTy, violating 3RR, starting mutiple edit wars, ignoring Wikipedia policy, and calling other editors various names while leveling various accusations and deflecting blame while Mindbunny got blocked for calling Robert Mugabe what he called him on his talk page? I took my block to heart and have tried to reset myself to what I know to be right, but I am really curious how it's possible that this editor can "get away" with this type of behavior, while others cannot. Thanks. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- FYI - a neutral third party user:Gerardw has proposed a solution which I [3] accepted promptly and unconditionally, whereas user:Erikeltic "accepted" with a huge list of pre-conditions.
- Since Erik rejected Gerard's proposal, I have since attempted to bridge with my own proposal but which Erik has refused to even respond to. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)