User talk:Sandstein

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

Quebec school board elections

Hello. I'm CJCurrie, and I've written several articles on Canadian politics, including politics in Quebec. I was absent from Wikipedia from December 19 until today; during my absence, an afd took place concerning 27 articles that I created concerning school board elections in Quebec. I see that you were the closing admin for this afd, and that a decision was made to delete all 27 of the pages in question.

I would like to request that you reconsider your decision to delete these pages. My reasons are as follows:

• (i) There was little participation in the afd. Only two contributors took part in the discussion, apart from the nominator.

• (ii) The afd took place at a time when many Wikipedians (myself included) were on vacation. My access to the internet was limited from December 19 until today. Had I been able to participate in this discussion prior to its closure, I would have raised several points in support of retaining at least some of the articles under consideration.

• (iii) The afd was not listed on discussion forums pertaining to Canadian politics. Several editors who may have wished to express an opinion were likely unaware of its existence.

• (iv) The afd covered 27 different elections over a significant stretch of time, but was listed under the name of one relatively minor election.

The afd was entitled, "Articles for deletion/Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election, 2003." The elections in question took place between 1973 and 2007, and they received extremely divergent levels of coverage.

The afd's short discussion section was focused primarily on two questions: (i) whether or school board elections are inherently notable, and (ii) whether the school board elections in question received coverage beyond a purely local level. Without here offering an opinion on the first question, I'll note that some of the elections in question did receive widespread coverage.

The 2003 Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election was a relatively minor event in Quebec's political history, but the same cannot be said of school commission elections in the 1970s (and, to a lesser extent, the 1980s). The nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and the elections that took place during this period received attention that was both extensive and national (and scholarly: Henry Milner's The Long Road to Reform includes an academic analysis of Montreal school board elections in the 1970s). My view is that, regardless of whether or not one believes school board elections are inherently notable, the mass deletion removed articles about some events that were notable on their own terms.

I do not think this particular afd was the proper forum for an omnibus decision concerning all of the elections in question. For this specific reason, I am requesting that you undelete the 26 "other" pages, such that they may be addressed if and as necessary on a case-by-case basis.

I would also request that you temporarily undelete the 2003 CSMB election page such that a more complete discussion may take place.

Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I can, in part, understand the reasons why you ask me for this. However, based on my experience with AfDs, most if not all of these articles would have been deleted anyway for lack of notability, no matter where the discussions were advertised or who was notified. Taking one typical, random example, Commission scolaire Jérôme-Le Royer election, 1980 contained nothing but a table with the result of the votes for each districts (with each candidate receiving on the order of a few hundred votes) and a single reference to a newspaper as a source. There's no discussion of why this particular election had any importance to anybody, and no references to reliable sources discussing that importance. Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, Wikipedia isn't just a dumping ground for raw data. On that basis alone, regardless of notability concerns, the article would have needed to be deleted.

I quite believe you when you say that the nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major (if only local or regional) political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, but in this case it is that broader topic (if there are sources for it) that should be the subject of an article, with the election results summarized at an appropriate level of detail, not necessarily individual elections. In addition, individual editors or projects are not entitled to be informed about any particular deletion proposal; that would run counter to WP:OWN and might even give rise to concerns of canvassing.

For these reasons, I'll not restore and relist all of these articles. But if there is any specific article that you believe would benefit from an individual discussion because there are reliable sources discussing that particular election in some detail, such that the article about it could pass WP:GNG, I'm ready to restore and relist that specific article.  Sandstein  09:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if it looks as if I'm butting in, but because school and school related articles are on my watchlist, I would like to mention that although I missed the AfD due to being absent for a few days, I would also have voted for deletion. In fact, I may not have voted but have chosen instead to close it, in which case the result would have been the same as Sandstein's. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize that my initial request may have seemed unusual, and I hope that I can clarify a few details with this follow-up post.

First, you are quite right to assert that many of the articles under discussion did not provide evidence of notability for the elections in question. This is not (in most cases) because such evidence does not exist or cannot be found. It's rather because I did not foresee that the notability of these pages would be called into question and, for this reason, did not believe that it would be problematic to create the pages in stub form, with the intent of adding more detail at a later date.

My view is that most of these pages could be upgraded to "proper" entries without terribly much additional effort. (In passing, I could note that one of the pages capable of improvement is Commission scolaire Jérôme-Le Royer election, 1980, the topic of which was discussed in some detail in Montreal's English- and French-language papers.)

This is not, however, the main reason why I requested that you reconsider your decision. My main procedural concern was and remains that this particular afd was not the right forum for an omnibus decision on the notability of entries for school board elections.

My own view was, and remains, that the results of Quebec's school board elections are inherently notable. School commissions in Canada are entrusted with significant powers of governance, and it is my view that the results of school board elections are inherently within the public interest. I do not believe that providing interested readers with this information violates WP's policy against "excessive listings of statistics."

Others may disagree with this contention, and it is not my intention to debate this point in detail at present. I will simply repeat that I do not believe that this afd was the correct place to determine consensus on the matter — especially in light of (i) the fact that the afd was listed in the name of a single, relatively minor election, and (ii) the limited nature of the discussion.

It is for this reason that I requested the un-deletion of the other 26 pages.

If you do not believe that this is the correct course of action, then I would request that you un-delete and re-list the following articles: Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1973, Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1977, Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1980. These are the most individually notable of the elections in question, and it's my belief that they would qualify for inclusion even within the spirit of the recent afd discussion.

There is also another possibility that I would like to raise. Even prior to the listing of this afd, I had considered amalgamating several of these articles into centralized entries arranged by calendar year (e.g., Quebec school board elections, 1973 or Montreal-area school board elections, 1973). This approach would have the advantage of permitting the inclusion of more detailed and relevant information about each year's electoral cycle and of providing a repository for appropriate statistical information.

At present, this approach strikes me as a possible means of resolving this situation — my only concern is that it could be interpreted as a means of sidestepping the afd decision. As the closing admin, can you provide any assurance that the creation of such pages would not be restricted by the afd?

Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with your procedural concerns, and decline undeleting the articles on these grounds. AfD is the proper forum for deletion requests. Collective nominations are not prohibited by its rules, and are relatively frequent. Any concerns that the articles should have been discussed individually should have been brought up during the deletion discussion, not afterwards. If you disagree with this assessment, you can appeal the closure at WP:DRV.

As concerns the three articles you would like relisted, can you please provide references to independent reliable sources covering them, so that I can ascertain whether these articles would have at least a remote chance of passing AfD on individual notability grounds?

Concerning the creation of new articles, any new articles that contain essentially only the content of the deleted articles (i.e., election results) would likely be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. If they contain additional, sourced encyclopedic text, they would likely require a new deletion discussion.  Sandstein  10:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this may be a moot point at this stage, but I'll further clarify that I am not questioning the general validity of the principle behind collective afd nominations — I simply believe it was inappropriate to have had all 27 pages listed in the name of a single, not-entirely-representative example.

I will require some time to compile a list of independent reliable sources pertaining to the three pages listed above. I am not planning to create any new pages with essentially only the same text as those recently deleted, and I will take your response to mean that you do not regard the pages suggested in my previous post as prohibited by the recent afd decision.

Finally, I'll note that I'm quite aware that the recently deleted pages would not be of great importance to most readers. This is, of course, an entirely separate concern from whether or not the materials contained therein were encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very few Canadian School Board elections are "encyclopedic" in any way. Something serious would have to take place besides just the election for any of them ES&L 10:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Martin MacNeill‎ closure

Any opinion or suggestions for a) deletion or b)improvement of the article? --Lexein (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. I can only find that there is no consensus that this person is insufficiently notable to be covered in an article. What to do with the article now is up to the editors interested in it.  Sandstein  18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; it'll all work out somehow. --Lexein (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sandstein!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Sandstein: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you, and to you as well!  Sandstein  22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of RoslynSKP

Sandstein, can I ask you a couple of questions about the recent AE block you carried out on RoslynSKP? I'm asking not as an arbitrator, but as someone who commented at the recent amendment request (I recused in the case itself). I made two comments at the amendment request, one here and one here. The questions I had was how you decided on the block length of two weeks and whether you were aware that this would be RoslynSKP's first ever block (is it that common for editors to end up at AE without having been blocked before)? I think you came up with the block length from the AE discussion. I'm not familiar enough with RoslynSKP's editing history to know how often she edits or when she is likely to become aware of the block, but would you, as the blocking admin, be willing to keep an eye on her talk page for the next two weeks? People react in various ways when they are blocked for the first time, and as I said at the amendment request, a lot depends on her response to this block. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I commented on the reasons for the block length in the AE thread - in brief, the enforcement remedy says that first blocks may be for up to a month, which suggests to me that half that time should be appropriate for a first infraction, even more so considering that RoslynSKP continued to infringe the restrictions applying to her even after the request for enforcement was made. I've watchlisted her talk page and will respond to any unblock requests. In general, as with any block, I'm ready to lift the block if I am convinced that the blocked editor understands what they did wrong and that they won't do it again (which, in this case, should be easy considering the now-active topic ban).  Sandstein  16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. It is good to get a timely response (on a substantive point, would you lifting the block re-suspend the topic ban as mentioned under 'community processes' in the decision?). I guess the arbitrators are waiting to see what happens if anything, though I was kind of hoping some of them might have responded to the points I raised. My WWI edits (not that numerous) are mainly in the Western Front topic area, so I'm not that familiar with the Middle East topic area, but I can see that the relatively inflexible way the case remedies were drafted and voted through and enforced means that there is now the potential to lose over the next nine months a huge amount of content editing relating to the Middle Eastern theatre of that war (even giving AE admins the flexibility to impose a shorter length topic ban would have been better than what has happened).

To expand slightly on what I said at the amendment request, I'm not sure if you (or indeed the arbitrators) are aware, but this has all put a visible strain on the MILHIST co-ordinators (that was evident from the tone of some of the comments at the AE request and the co-ordinators talk page). If any of the co-ordinators are reading this (I'll ping Nick-D and HJ Mitchell who commented at the request), they have my sympathies, though I am puzzled that this was apparently the first ever block or topic ban imposed in relation to this dispute (surely something less draconian could have been tried first before arbitration?) - if I'd realised this during the case I would have said something. FWIW, I have plans to suggest to MILHIST that they go ahead with increased co-ordination of the WWI topic area, but as I said to Kirill here the timing isn't great (his reply). Trouble is, the timing's not really getting any better. Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, good question. The decision says that "If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension". I don't know if a successful appeal to the blocking administrator would count. Based on the remedy's reference to the page WP:GAB, which describes unblock requests to other administrators, that may not have been intended, but the reference to that page may have been in error because the block is an arbitration enforcement block that can't be appealed through ordinary channels. I think that this question would require a request for clarification to the Committee if the block were ever to be lifted based on a convincing request by RoslynSKP.

As regards the editing conditions in WWI-related articles or in the military history wikiproject, I'm sorry to say that I'm not at all familiar with them and so I can't comment about that. For this reason, I also don't have an opinion about whether the Committee's sanction was appropriate.  Sandstein  18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As I noted at the request for amendment, while I initially didn't support blocking or topic banning RoslynSKP for the edit warring, the blatant violations of her restrictions (which, sadly, forms part of a clear pattern of pushing against the restrictions and continuing her unhelpful behaviour) changed my mind and I now think that the topic ban is appropriate as it seems to be the only way to get her to move on (and hence to save the other editors working on these topics from continued grief). I'd have no problem with her asking for this to be lifted in a few months if she can demonstrate productive and collaborative editing elsewhere: the best outcome would be for RoslynSKP to be able to edit this topic (in which she has real expertise) but without the incredibly unhelpful behaviour which has made this a miserable field for other editors (who also have considerable expertise) to work in. I agree that more use should have been made of the admin processes before this went to ArbCom, but here we are. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry, Sandstein, for continuing this here.) I get what you are saying, Nick, and the impetus for change absolutely has to come from RoslynSKP herself, but something still feels wrong here. I may be old school in that I'm used to an editor's initial block being short and sharp (a day or two), to make them realise that things are getting serious. Two weeks for a first block just sits uneasily with me. Something has gone wrong when someone can get involved in disputes, get all the way to arbitration, through a case, and out the other side, without ever having been blocked, and then be blocked for two weeks as their first block. Somewhere along the line they got the message that it was OK to argue (and engage in low-level edit warring and reverting) because there were no consequences for their actions (the same could be said of some of the language used at that AE request - I know the MILHIST co-ordinators are all excellent editors, but for many the lasting memory will be the offputting language used there).

The question of the userspace drafts does need consideration, because I'd hate to see an argument at AE over whether it is OK for someone coming off a block like this to work on such drafts or not. The aim for everyone here should be to get those drafts worked on and published so that readers of Wikipedia can benefit from them. The final point I want to make is that, like Newyorkbrad at the amendment request, you make the common misconception of thinking that she can ask "for this [topic ban] to be lifted in a few months". The case pages explicitly say that she cannot appeal earlier than nine months. This is the inflexibility I was talking about earlier. I've seen it in other arbitration cases and I know from experience why that sort of inflexibility is built into cases (to prevent excessive and premature appeals), but I think that was a mistake here. Anyway, I'll leave this now, as the only way anything will change here is if we see change from RoslynSKP when (if) she returns from her block. The ball really is, as they say, in her court. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:Gm545

I saw Gm545's unblock request, and while he does seem more experienced than a genuinely new editor, I didn't see any problems with his edits. In fact his AfD comments are better than average, I'd say. Thus I'm tempted to assume good faith and unblock; at worst that'll just give him some WP:ROPE. Any objections? Any evidence of disruption or strange intents I missed? Huon (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't any disruption caused by their edits, as such. The problem is that their edits betray far too much knowledge of Wikipedia process to be those of a new editor, which they claim to be. Their edits focus on AfD almost exclusively, also highly atypical of new editors. This behavioral evidence indicates to me that they are either an alternate account used in a manner incompatible with WP:SOCK to influence the deletion process, or they are a banned or blocked editor evading their sanction via sockpuppetry. There's plenty of those around. For this reason I recommend against unblocking the account.  Sandstein  20:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

While that is certainly possible, blocking should be a last resort, after we have more conclusive evidence than this. --Rschen7754 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi,

Just wanted to point you to this relevant essay here - Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Also, I think AGF applies here, so we should have just welcomed the user.

Also, please note that any editors making a WP:CLEANSTART are not required to make any prior disclosures.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction Ban on Estlandia

Any chance I can get the interaction ban to include me? I was unavailable during the AC, so I couldn't speak up. His irrational behavior towards me on the United Poland article, including his contrived edit war, included edit comments directed toward me such as please stop unjustified removals. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too), (together against porn and filth!), (@ Ajh1492 - removing sourced stuff and replacing it with unsourced propaganda? Very constructive indeed!), Stop adding unsourced agitprop! and Rv absurd edit. a 2000 (!!!) source for a party founded in 2012?. I'd personally like to get the block removed from my record since I think the related admins only superficially studied the problem and responded to Estlandia's specious counter-charge. I tried to bring up the fact that neither was 3RR violated plus they never took into account the personal attacks, nor even looked at Talk:United Poland to see the discussion to attempt to engage Estlandia. Instead someone who was being rather rudely treated and verbally brutalized with personal attacks was swept up in a knee-jerk reaction by two admins. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Estlandia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't edited much since being sanctioned. If they engage in problematic conduct towards you, you can request sanctions at WP:AE. But there does not seem to be an urgent need for admin action at this time.  Sandstein  20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:

I'm replying on your talk page.  Sandstein  13:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sandstein, your decision is totally unacceptable. You are killing my motivation for contribution for Wikipedia without knowing more closely the situation. And what does "everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" mean? What does Armenia has to do with it? I have zero interest in Armenia or Armenian related articles. I am improving the Georgian related articles and all I do is to contribute, improve them. Check the history of the Georgian alphabet, all I did was I reverted it to the balanced and neutral version as it was back then before it was changed into biased version. I've done nothing wrong to have this kind of sanction from any administrator. Jaqeli (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)‎

Please explain how you reached a no consensus on this. Majority of Keeps gave no reason within policy to keep, just said Keep. Votes for deletion are higher than those for keep, and the majority of deletes voiced policy concerns regarding the list. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained at some length in the closing rationale why I concluded that there was no consensus to delete the article. As you probably know, there are no votes in deletion discussions. It's true that many "keep" opinions were weak, but so were many "delete" opinions. Accordingly, I focused on the question of whether there was any compelling (rather than "merely" convincing) deletion rationale that might override the default "no consensus" outcome. I found that not (quite) to be the case.  Sandstein  20:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, and will take it to deletion review. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I take no position whatsoever on how you closed this discussion, but I appreciate your making a decision and writing a summary of the AfD. I expect that what you did will leave many people on all sides of the debate unsatisfied because controversial issues can be difficult to address. It is my view that you made an earnest and competent attempt to do what needed to be done. I would encourage anyone who disagrees with you to respect the effort you shared with the community and take any further action as they like. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to try your best to execute administrative actions. Thank you a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you!  Sandstein  21:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a review of the non deletion here Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sandstein, could you either take action as the AfD closer or comment on the discussion about returning names to this list? It feels like it's an end-run around the close (yes it happened before the close but...). There is a discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • nm, looks like it has resolved itself. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion by Jaqeli

Hello Sandstein. Please kindly note that User Jaqeli has recently violated his AA2 topic ban by editing [1] a controversial article on Armenia, Mithridates of Armenia. The article does not cite any sources and is written in a tendentious manner. Thanks. Hablabar (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned this on their talk page.  Sandstein  23:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal

[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your statement there, are you saying I am still allowed to remove obvious BLP vios? If so I will happily withdraw the appeal. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because based on your edit-warring it appears possible that you will consider many edits you disagree with to be an "obvious" policy violation even if they are in fact not. You may however point any problematic edits out to others, and if they are that obvious then others will quickly revert them.  Sandstein  23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

You may want to take a look at this.[3] I was not previously familiar with WP:REMOVED, but it appears that this is violation of bullet point 1:

"Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a guideline, not a policy. I have the right to clear my talk page. I have requested clarification on this at ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Before acting, please take a look at this diff.[4] Apparently, there was a conscious decision to remove AE enforced sanctions from the wording, but the editors who made the change didn't realize that "any other notice regarding an active sanction" would be interpreted to include AE enforced sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to the removal and have made an ANI comment to that effect.  Sandstein  23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thanks, I appreciate your response. As I said, I was not previously aware of WP:REMOVED, but on the surface, it appeared to be clear violation. Thankfully, Writ Keeper did their homework and discovered that previous discussion. Had I known that, I would not have brought this to your attention. I do apologize for that. On the bright side, hopefully this will lead to improvement of WP:REMOVED so other editors don't make the same mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

sanction clarifications

generic question about sanctions. For Darkness Shines, is the sanction you placed considered a 0RR? Are any edits that remove content then prohibited, or only reverts of recent additions? Is there a page that outlines what list of sanctions are appropriate? (IE, did you just pick a sanction from a menu that may or may not have criteria for use, or are admins allowed to invent sanctions at will for topics that have discretionary sanctions applied? ) I am not attempting to criticize your action, just trying to make sure I understand the policies and process. (I am deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom, so want to make sure I know what the new rules are going to look like)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I invented the sanction myself. WP:AC/DS allows admins to do this. How exactly it works is something I don't see any reason to go into more detail now, considering that it doesn't affect you.  Sandstein  23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are good reasons to know the details of how you manage to create new rules out of thin air regardless of whether or not that new rule affects certain parties. Accountability is rather important concept, you know... at least to those of us who er... live in the "outside world". :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)