User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/September

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Sandstein. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Whyte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Saga (comics)

I would appreciate if you accompanied it with a citation. I worked hard on the Saga article on it getting it Good Article status, so as a friendly note, I'd appreciate it if when adding material like this, that you'd accompany it with a citation of a reliable source. Thanks, Sandstein. Nightscream (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced in the linked article, Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, and also further down in the article at Saga (comic book)#Awards. Easily verified factual material doesn't always need inline referencing, especially in the lead, which is not otherwise footnoted much and is a summary of the article. You should look at material more carefully before reverting it with sweeping statements about NOR and V.  Sandstein  15:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of amendment request

I have filed an amendment request concerning you. Please see the section on the amendment request page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARCA

Hi Sandstein. I have asked for clarification from the arbitration committee about your interpretation of the extended topic bans of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher as one-way interaction bans. You may wish to comment there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Seddon ^talk 23:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of references and referenced information by User:GiorgosY

Could you notify User:GiorgosY of AA2 and ARBMAC restrictions? His deletions/edits to Persecution of Muslims are in clear violation of said restrictions.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Thanks.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

After a short conversation,[7] User:GiorgosY has taken removal of references and referenced information to the Greek War of Independence article.[8] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like EdJohnston took care of that.  Sandstein  11:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to deal with an endless swarm of sockpuppets. Today for example this IP made his first ever edit plus a dozen more, with the main purpose to disrupt my work, I reverted it all because I think its just AndresHerutJaim, but then a few hours later he makes a new account and again mainly goes after my edits. I'm worried that if I mass revert Andres' edits that he will make a third account to report me for breaking 1RR and that his friendly admins will block me for it. So, what can I do about these socks? If I go to spi they will block them, but he already discards the accounts and ips as though they were blocked. Can I revert his obvious accounts without fear of 1RR? Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:3RRNO, reverting socks of banned or blocked editors is exempt from revert restrictions. Accounts exhibiting an editing pattern such as that of Pekffeintheda (talk · contribs) who you linked to, and I've now blocked, can be reasonably certainly be assumed to be socks. However, an administrator may disagree and still block you. And in any case, revert warring does not solve the problem of the socks existing in the first place. I strongly advise you therefore not to revert war with socks or alleged socks, but to report them to SPI and to revert them only after they are blocked. Please do not refer to any administrators as any sockpuppeteer's "friendly admins". Almost all administrators, in my experience, do their best to resolve problems neutrally, and any assumption to the contrary makes me very suspect of your own motives.  Sandstein  22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

AE appeal

If I decide to appeal the decision on this case [9], I'm confused as to where I would go. Do you have any suggestions on what the correct forum would be. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

• (talk page stalker) That would be an unwise thing to even consider, IMHO. There was more-than-significant discussion, and based on the "evidence", there was no other possible close to the "case". The wisest thing to do would be to accept the community decision, and over the next 3 months learn why your behaviour led to that discussion in the first place, work in other areas to show that you can actually work collegially and within the rules. In no less than 3 months, go back to AE and appeal, showing links to your good work/good behaviour. One slip in the next 3 months will simply extend your appeal date accordingly ES&L 23:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion. I hope Sandstein will respond to my original question above. As an experienced AE admin, I think he's the best one to ask. (olive (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

Appeal rules are a bit unclear currently, and are under review. My best guess is that you may appeal either at WP:ARCA or WP:AE. I haven't read the thread closely enough to be able to venture a guess as to the chances of an appeal.  Sandstein  04:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you've been very helpful.(olive (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Race and intelligence

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been proposed at the above named request for clarification, in which you were named as a party. The motion can be viewed here. Please feel free to register your comments at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Scientology

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that I have proposed a motion at the above named request for clarification, and that this motion or involves you. The motion can be viewed here. Please feel free to submit your comments at the clarification request. Regards, AGK [•] 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rebel Spirit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

one way bans

I have iterated, I think, that one-way interaction bans are basically problematic. I suggest that they not be used in future. As an aside, where the "non-banned" person mentions a person on a noticeboard, I would consider posts at AE regarding such a person or list of persons implicitly as "opening the gate" under any common-sense interpretation of an interaction ban, else the entire concept really fails badly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Plot Spoiler

Sorry for the hassle, but I've filed an arbitration enforcement action appeal here: WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Plot Spoiler. Your consideration is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bechdel

Hello, I was wondering whether the word "man" really covers all male characters (which can include male adolescents, young boys, babies, and, I suppose, even anthropomorphized male non-human animals in works of fiction that use such characters, e.g. Winnie the Pooh). I therefore thought "male characters" was a better, broader term than simply "men." Do you think this is going too far? Wolfdog (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but the sources say just "man". We have to follow them, or we'd be making up our own version of the test.  Sandstein  23:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

This is a message to inform you that a request for clarification has now been closed and following motion has been passed. The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk · contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:

• Commenting on, or interacting with, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)
• Commenting on, or interacting with, Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of SightWatcher (talk · contribs).

This motion should be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence final decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

This is a message to inform you that a request for clarification has now been closed and following motion has been passed. The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 00:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

full history wasn't restored

Can you restore the full history of Harry Styles? [10] When they turned it to a redirect, they also erased all history from being visible. This will give those wishing to create a new article for the person something to start with. Dream Focus 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cervelas

Your edits to this article are problematic. You've put a disambiguation at the top of the page that says "this article is about the Swiss sausage". But as the article notes, Cervelas are part of Alsace tradition. Last I checked, Alsace is French? Furthermore, you've cut out all the Cervelas de Lyon content. But what evidence have you that this type of cervela is unrelated to the other types? You seem to be editing from a rather nationalistic point of view. In fact, cervelas seem to come in a variety of types and seems to vary by region and historically. I am not an expert on the subject so perhaps a wider audience should be brought in. Still, I think your edits arent' constructive. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm, it just seems to me that Cervelat and Cervelas de Lyon are two completely different sausages that share nothing but a name. As they are different topics, they should be treated on different pages. Whether to distinguish them in hatnotes as "Swiss" or "French" is a different matter and can be discussed, it's just that these are the countries the sausages are now associated with. I'm copying this to Talk:Cervelat, can we continue the discussion there?  Sandstein  15:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request closed

I have closed a request at arbitration enforcement with which you were involved. The result is that the appeal of sanctions by Plot Spoiler is declined and the restrictions remain in effect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I noticed in this AE you said there was no evidence of misconduct in other fringe science topic areas. The user was in fact warring at another fringe article, which didn't result in a block. The user also had multiple IPs. I'm not asking you to do anything, just clarifying User:EdJohnston's decision. vzaak (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cervelas de Lyon

Hello Sandstein,

This is just a courtesy visit to apprise you that I took the liberty to slightly expand your above article and cited relevant references supporting it. I hope you'd appreciate my little effort. Best regards, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC))