Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
:::::::As I said, a revert is also an edit that is subject to the restrictions. I think that I have made my thinking clear enough now. <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> 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::As I said, a revert is also an edit that is subject to the restrictions. I think that I have made my thinking clear enough now. <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> 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Yes, I understand that now. I find that neither reasonable nor helpful. Regards.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::Yes, I understand that now. I find that neither reasonable nor helpful. Regards.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}One more thing. If I understand the situation correctly, other admins have no authority to modify/amend the restrictions imposed by you. In connection to that, could you please amend the text of your rules to take into account what have been said during this discussion, namely, that the revert of the illegitimately added materials should be done only ''via'' consensus on the talk page of AE request? Something of that kind: |
|||
:"''(For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags<u>, as well as the revert of the edits made in violation of the instruction described below,</u> are neither minor edits nor <u>removal of</u> vandalism.)''" (The addition I propose is underlined). |
|||
and: |
|||
:"''4. The changes that have been made in violation of this instruction (see #2) can be removed only if such removal is supported by consensus, or by means of AE request.''" |
|||
I believe these modifications will help to avoid similar problems in future. Thank you in advance. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Notes about [[Articles for deletion/Hetek]] == |
== Notes about [[Articles for deletion/Hetek]] == |
Revision as of 16:15, 2 November 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.
Questions regarding you comments to the "Magnetic Tower of Hanoi" article
Hello Mr. Sandstein,
In reference to your comment on the Magnetic Tower of Hanoi article, could you please explain:
- Single purpose account
- Conflict of interest account
Also - don't you expect third-party coverage later on?
Overall - do you think the subject warrants a stand-alone article?
Uri-Levy (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, respectively. I've offered my opinion about whether the subject warrants a stand-alone article in the deletion discussion. Sandstein 13:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You might recall this article. I suggest that Paul Siebert does not understand WP:CONSENSUS as his posts at
[1] Reverted the changes that have been made in violation of the editing restrictions. See talk page,
[2] where he somehow feels he alone determines consensus,
and [3] with the (ominous?) otherwise I'll have to take other steps. You have 48 hours
none of which sounds remotely like seeking consensus by a few miles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement, as I've come to seen it as a waste of time due to insufficient Arbitration Committee support. I recommend that you make a report at WP:AE if you think this requires administrative action. Sandstein 21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein, it might be helpful for an experienced, neutral, temperate and collaborative admin to cast an eye over the discussion in this section, and also the Shall we try again discussion that follows it, with a view to negotiating a way through the impasse, stabilizing the article's lead in a version that at least complies with the editing restrictions while content discussion continues, and heading off what looks like a nascent revert war. Can you suggest anyone? Writegeist (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Lede 3" complies with all "editing restrictions" as far as I can tell. The only one threatening a "revert war" was Paul Siebert with the "48 hours or else" deadline. Cheers. Glad to see you agreed with me at Johann Hari by the way. Collect (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Writegeist, I think the place to ask for somebody like that would be WP:DRN, although admins have no particular authority in content matters. There are various other options for getting out of editorial impasses described at WP:DR. I, myself, regret to say that I have had quite enough of the poisonous editing environment that surrounds this sort of topic to attempt to contribute to that discussion. Also, after a look at the page history and at the restrictions currently in place, I get the feeling that if I were to involve myself with this nonsense again I would have to block almost everybody who has edited the article since February, although that might be a solution of sorts too. Sandstein 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Collect: No names, no pack drill. I carefully refrained from pointing fingers re. revert warring. The accusatory mode that's so much in evidence in relation to this difficult article is far from helpful.
- Sandstein, thank you for your advice and thoughts. I empathize! Writegeist (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein, I have a question about the edit restrictions you imposed on the MKuCR article. You procedure seems to tell nothing about the mechanism of removal of the content that has been added without proper discussion. Is removal of such a content deemed to be an ordinary revert, or it can be done according to more simple rules? For example, if an editor X added some content without discussion on the talk page, can I simply revert him, according to your rules, or I have to discuss this revert on the talk page and wait for the response from other users? I fully understand that you are not interested to discuss this subject any more, however I would be grateful if you explained me the course of your thought during the time when you were writing those rules.
Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion is that, as in normal cases of edit warring, a revert is not any less edit-warring just because it reverts an edit that is itself edit-warring. The only exceptions to this are reverts of vandalism and BLP violations, which are exempt from the prohibition against edit-warring. For this reason, the restriction I imposed does not provide for an exception to allow editors to revert edits that they think violate the restriction. I am of the view, though, that administrators may choose to revert edits that violate the restriction as part of the enforcement of the restriction. Sandstein 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- So, according to your procedure, a user that makes illegitimate edit can be sanctioned, but the edit he made may stay (if admin decided to ignore it)? However, that creates a situation when admins appear to be de facto involved in content issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, in cases where editors are blocked for normal edit-warring, their last revert is not normally also undone, precisely so as not to involve the admin in a content decision. That's why I, as an enforcing administrator, would only sanction the editors who make the edits violating the restriction (the original edit and its revert) but not make a revert myself. Other admins my however have different views about this and might prefer to always revert to the status quo ante as well. Sandstein 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, in a situation when one or more users added some content in violation of your procedure and refuse to support its removal during the talk page discussion, the only legitimate way to revert these changes is via the block of these users? If that is the case, then your sanctions just create more combative atmosphere, because it is impossible to collaborate with a person you are constantly reporting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, my view is that it allows cooperative editors to work on the article after the uncooperative ones have all been removed from the game via blocks or other sanctions. Besides, on Wikipedia as elsewhere, we do have to collaborate with people we dislike. Or work on something else. Sandstein 23:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we have to collaborate with those we dislike. However, by constant reporting each other we will create a situation when we dislike each other even more. I always tried to avoid ANI and AE at any cost, and I do not find your approach fruitful..--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, my view is that it allows cooperative editors to work on the article after the uncooperative ones have all been removed from the game via blocks or other sanctions. Besides, on Wikipedia as elsewhere, we do have to collaborate with people we dislike. Or work on something else. Sandstein 23:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, in a situation when one or more users added some content in violation of your procedure and refuse to support its removal during the talk page discussion, the only legitimate way to revert these changes is via the block of these users? If that is the case, then your sanctions just create more combative atmosphere, because it is impossible to collaborate with a person you are constantly reporting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, in cases where editors are blocked for normal edit-warring, their last revert is not normally also undone, precisely so as not to involve the admin in a content decision. That's why I, as an enforcing administrator, would only sanction the editors who make the edits violating the restriction (the original edit and its revert) but not make a revert myself. Other admins my however have different views about this and might prefer to always revert to the status quo ante as well. Sandstein 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, what did you mean when you left 1RR restriction in force? That each revert is supposed to be announced in advance on the talk page?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask the admin who imposed that restriction how exactly it is supposed to work. I left it in place because I had no authority to lift it. Sandstein 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, 1RR is not a part of your restrictions? Interesting. Maybe you admins should come together and create some consistent rules for this article? Remember, the primary admins' role is to provide comfortable conditions for the users that write Wikipedia, and it is not easy to work in a situation when even the admins themselves are not sure what one or another rule means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure what the 1RR rule means, but I'm not the person to ask about it because I didn't impose it. I don't see any potential for conflict between the restrictions, at any rate. If an edit has consensus after several days as required by my restrictions, it can't violate the 1RR rule. In this sense, my restriction extends the 1RR rule and makes it redundant. As far as I can tell, the restrictions that currently apply are internally consistent. If you obey them, you will be able to work comfortably. Sandstein 23:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Under "edit" you mean "revert"? I interpreted your restrictions as that consensus is needed to add/modify some content, whereas reverts can be done independently on that, because the change unsupported by consensus can be removed by anyone. That is essentially the same rules that are currently in force (unofficially) for the WWII article: one has to obtain consensus for addition/modification of the article, however, no consensus is needed for revert of the changes unsupported by consensus. These rules work perfectly (it became a GA recently), and I thought you implied something of that kind when you applied your restrictions. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, a revert is also an edit that is subject to the restrictions. I think that I have made my thinking clear enough now. Sandstein 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that now. I find that neither reasonable nor helpful. Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, a revert is also an edit that is subject to the restrictions. I think that I have made my thinking clear enough now. Sandstein 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Under "edit" you mean "revert"? I interpreted your restrictions as that consensus is needed to add/modify some content, whereas reverts can be done independently on that, because the change unsupported by consensus can be removed by anyone. That is essentially the same rules that are currently in force (unofficially) for the WWII article: one has to obtain consensus for addition/modification of the article, however, no consensus is needed for revert of the changes unsupported by consensus. These rules work perfectly (it became a GA recently), and I thought you implied something of that kind when you applied your restrictions. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure what the 1RR rule means, but I'm not the person to ask about it because I didn't impose it. I don't see any potential for conflict between the restrictions, at any rate. If an edit has consensus after several days as required by my restrictions, it can't violate the 1RR rule. In this sense, my restriction extends the 1RR rule and makes it redundant. As far as I can tell, the restrictions that currently apply are internally consistent. If you obey them, you will be able to work comfortably. Sandstein 23:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, 1RR is not a part of your restrictions? Interesting. Maybe you admins should come together and create some consistent rules for this article? Remember, the primary admins' role is to provide comfortable conditions for the users that write Wikipedia, and it is not easy to work in a situation when even the admins themselves are not sure what one or another rule means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask the admin who imposed that restriction how exactly it is supposed to work. I left it in place because I had no authority to lift it. Sandstein 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
One more thing. If I understand the situation correctly, other admins have no authority to modify/amend the restrictions imposed by you. In connection to that, could you please amend the text of your rules to take into account what have been said during this discussion, namely, that the revert of the illegitimately added materials should be done only via consensus on the talk page of AE request? Something of that kind:
- "(For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, as well as the revert of the edits made in violation of the instruction described below, are neither minor edits nor removal of vandalism.)" (The addition I propose is underlined).
and:
- "4. The changes that have been made in violation of this instruction (see #2) can be removed only if such removal is supported by consensus, or by means of AE request."
I believe these modifications will help to avoid similar problems in future. Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Notes about Articles for deletion/Hetek
Hi. After your note about Articles for deletion/Hetek I have checked user Nedudgi. You can do also. Nedudgi has contribution only in enwiki and huwiki. Nedudgi has been blocked for infinit time in huwiki. The reason is "harci zokni", which means sock puppet soldier. Since Nedudgi was the only one who suggested to keep article Hetek I have a question: Can reconsider your note? --Euty (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing to reconsider, I've only relisted the thread. If you think Nedudgi is a sock puppet, you can ask for an investigation at WP:SPI. Sandstein 11:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I accept there is nothing to reconsider. But I am sorry, that I do not think Nedudgi is a sock puppet. It was considered and it was proven in huwiki. So does not matter what I think or what you think. It was proven Nedudgi is a sock puppet and Nedudgi was blocked for infinit time in huwiki. It is a nonarguable proven fact. One can argue what should follow from it. Actually, that I do not know. Sincerely. Euty (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- What is it that you would like me to do? Sandstein 11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Nothing more, than read my notes. Since you have read them, I thank you for it. About the deletion let's see what will happen. Euty (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
AfD question
Regarding your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian-Heinrich, Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein - would it be alright to see if I can recreate an article on him as a stub, referenced to reliable print sources, without all the genealogy? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
AE request
Paul Siebert has filed his ultimatum-promised action at AE, and seems to have forgotten to notify you. I am doing so, as I feel the fact that I have acted as best as humanly possible in accord with your strictures, and that my posts here show that, that his act is almost an abuse of the process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why I should have been notified. As I said above, I am not currently active in AE, and I leave it to other admins to determine whether and how to address the situation that is the subject of the AE request to which you refer. Sandstein 13:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
AFD canvassing at non-WP forum
Hi, you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Hampshire Liberty Alliance; I've found via a Google search that the article's author used an external forum to solicit anti-deletion entries to the discussion. WP:CANVASS doesn't appear to explicitly cover non-WP solicitation, but it clearly violates the guideline. What action should be taken, and does this invalidate the AFD discussion? Thanks, Rostz (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. Collecting votes on an external forum is clearly inadmissible. I think that pointing out that the previous discussion was compromised by canvassing would be a good reason for starting a new deletion discussion. This will allow whoever closes the second discussion to discount opinions that may have been canvassed. Sandstein 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest WP:False consensus gives grounds for any admin to disregard any such result (based on ArbCom dicta). IOW, you could have started it anew from scratch. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)