User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/April

Dioxin Paragraph Deletion

What can I do to present the information about dioxin contextually and in a non-misleading way?----A.K. Liem, P. Furst, C. Rappe, Exposure of populations to dioxins and related compounds, Food Addit. Contam. 17 (2000) 241-259, http://books.nap.edu/html/dioxins/reportbrief.pdf Dioxins And Dioxin-Like Compounds In The Food Supply: Strategies To De-crease Exposure] Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), Institute of Medicine, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheidippides (talk • contribs)

You refer to this? Generally, read WP:UNDUE. In the context of issues people have with meat generally, dioxin appears to be a relatively minor concern, so it seems to be out of proportion to highlight it in this way, although it could be mentioned in passing as part of a list of other possible health concerns. In the context of dioxin, meat contamination may be a more important topic, so the text could be integrated into an article related to dioxin.  Sandstein  16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible scrutiny evasion

Hi Sandstein I want to draw people's attention two {{YGM}} templates left by IPs to Volunteer Marek[1] and Lviviske[2]. For clarity I'm not alleging ANY misconduct by the two users being contacted. Marek responded on wiki[3] to avoid even the appearance of breaching WP:EEML. However the person behind the IP is cleary attempting to evade scrutiny. Only user accounts can send emails. I didn't note this at AE because it is a side issue and because I'm not sure what (if anything) can be done. The IPs in question are: 66.122.182.34 & 66.122.184.234 both of which geolocate to Paradise, CA, USA--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is an evasion of scrutiny issue, but I don't think that we can or should do anything about it.  Sandstein  16:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Separately

On Lviviske's current[4] user page there is userbox that links to Euromaidan with a phrase written in Ukranian, which translates "WE have declared war! F**k them!" (this is a user generated not transcluded userbox) and a Userbox declaring "This user is against an independent Kosovo". Is it an over reaction to quote WP:SOAP and WP:UP#POLEMIC? Personally i also think Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground is relevant in this context.
I also note the tenor of comments about me by Lviviske alleging "fabrication" and lying on my part in this conversation[5] (which has since been blanked Lviviske. Also this ad hominem remark is worth noting in relation to another user[6]--Cailil ^talk 13:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that polemical userboxes of this kind violate the policies you mention. But these are relatively mild, so I'd not impose sanctions based on them alone, but they can be circumstantial evidence of non-neutral or battleground editing in the context of sanctions. Ad hominems towards admins (and others) are sadly common in an AE context, and it's not usually worth the bother of addressing them at all, as doing so could be seen as an indication of bias (and future "involvement") on your part.  Sandstein  16:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I have a lower threshold for considering userboxen polemical than most admins - hence my checking in--Cailil ^talk 19:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article on "neo-Catholic"

May I ask why this page was deleted after years of being accessible? The term was introduced into Catholic discourse in 2002 in a book I co-authored, The Great Facade (Remnant Press: 2002), and has been used widely since then. Furthermore, a new book by Betty Cleremont, "The Neo-Catholics: Implementing Christian Nationalism in America," has a chapter devoted to one facet of the constituency the term connotes.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Ferrara Caferrara (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The page Neo-Catholic was deleted because it was a redirect to a non-existent page (see WP:CSD#G8). It pointed to Neo-Catholicism, which was deleted as a result of community consensus in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Catholicism (2nd nomination).  Sandstein  20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Neo-Catholicism"

I agree that the existing entry (to which I made no contribution) was not that well done, but the term needs to be recognized because "traditionalism," which has an entry, is, in reality, simply Catholicism minus the innovations of the past fifty years. There is no term, however, to describe the constituency that has arisen in the Church over the past half-century. If, as wikipedia states, traditionalism is a "current" so is the constituency which has departed from what traditionalists believe and practice, which was universally believed and practiced by Catholics before circa 1965. It does not fairly depict the situation to say that there are Catholics simpliciter, on the one hand, and traditionalists on the other. Something much more serious and complex is at work in the Church today.

Nor is it fair to dismiss the term as a mere pejorative. It is no more a pejorative than the term "neo-conservativism" to which it is analogous, versus "paleo-conservativism," to which traditionalism is analogous. On that score this article might be helpful to you: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Oct/oct9tra.htm.

I think you should consider allowing me to create a better written entry. The objection that the term is ill-defined is easily refuted by a careful description. It is no more ill-defined, when defined carefully, than "traditionalism."

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Ferrara Caferrara Caferrara (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is free to create a new article at Neo-Catholicism, but if it fails our inclusion criteria such as WP:GNG, or fails to address the reasons why it was deleted the last time (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Catholicism (2nd nomination)), then it may be quickly deleted again. Generally, specialized terms such as this one are kept as article subjects only if there are reliable independent sources that discuss them in depth, and are cited in the article.  Sandstein  22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Neo-Catholicism"

I will, in cooperation with others around the world, prepare a new article on the term. As for the "community discussion" that led to the original article's deletion, I see only two or three discussants writing under pseudonyms and not much of a discussion even between them. Would they be administrators of some sort or merely people who do not like term and wished to see it deleted? How exactly does the deletion process work? Can anyone ask for a deletion, start a discussion, and then obtain a decision to delete from an administrator? Would you be the only administrator in charge of deletions for English language pages?

I ask these questions because I have no idea how this process works and would appreciate some guidance before I spend time creating an article only to have some partisan objector start another "discussion" leading to immediate deletion of something the discussant may have a vested interest in suppressing.

In that regard I note that one of the discussants asserts that "neo-Catholic" connotes merely all Catholics other than traditionalists, when in fact the term has a precise ideological connotation that has emerged in discourse and debate between traditionalists and their progressive Catholic opponents. Indeed, the term merely denotes that strain of progressive Catholicism already described by George Sim Johnston in 1996:

<<<The featured players [James Hitchcock, Helen Hull Hitchcock, George Weigel and James Sullivan, formerly of Catholics United for the Faith] do not locate themselves on the theological “right.” They embrace Vatican II, don’t pine for the Tridentine liturgy, and support the historically radical ecumenism of John Paul II…. By any historical measure, the “conservatives” in this volume *are progressive Catholics.* Until recently, their views on the role of the laity would not have played well with the Roman curia. Nor would their choice of philosophical mentors: von Balthasar, de Lubac, Congar, Danielou—not to mention John Courtney Murray…. Unlike the Sadducees on the Catholic left and the Pharisees on the truly Catholic right, the “conservatives” in this volume understand the pontificate of John Paul II because they understand the Second Vatican Council. They understand that Christ founded a teaching Church whose doctrines are not subject to whim and manipulation. But they also realize that the Church, being human and organic, has to change. Vatican II was the antidote to the triumphalism, legalism, clericalism, and, yes, Jansenism, that plagued the Church forty years ago.>>> Crisis, May 1996, page 6.

Also, the term is not used only "in America," but rather is now in use internationally in print and on the Internet in blogs and elsewhere.

Thank you for you kind attention.

Chris FerraraCaferrara (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can read at WP:DP how deletion works here. In brief, my role is incidental and purely formal, limited to detemine whether there is consensus to delete among those who happen to participate in a deletion discussion, and I'm one of many administrators. Personally, I have no interest in the topic.  Sandstein  04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. We will create a new article and then, if necessary, object to any further discussion aimed at suppressing a word already widely in use. People engaged in debate within the Church should not be able to dictate the words that will be recognized as terms in the debate. Neo-Catholic, like neo-conservative in politics, has already earned its place in the Catholic lexicon, appearing in the very title of a recently published scholarly work.

Thanks. Caferrara (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your emasculation and evisceration of the Accursed Kings article

What the hell, man?
Why even bother having an article at all if you are simply going to blow away everything worth reading, eh?
Put the content back. Jesus Christ.
99.247.1.157 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And maybe you don't give a shit about the Academie francaise in Germany.

But in the English-speaking world, we do give a shit about it.

99.247.1.157 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you make your argument on the article talk page, Talk:The Accursed Kings, so that others may weigh in also. Also, I've found that in life, one generally gets farther with a friendly, nonconfrontational approach, particularly in a collaborative endeavor such as this.  Sandstein  17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But he called you "Jesus Christ"!  :-) DP 23:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Hi Sandstein, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your March 2014 block is being misunderstood by other moderators

In March of 2014 you had blocked me for using the language "harass" during an AE, but NOT for the underlying/substantive issue in the AE itself. The AE itself was concluded as "not actionable" by yourself and Penwhale (talk · contribs). I would appreciate a modification of the wording on my talk page so that moderators aren't mistaken into thinking that I violated the arbitration decision that was at issue in the original AE. Thanks.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in Urartu's recent block that was at all related to AE. Nobody's mistaking anything - except for Urartu mistaking how Wikipedia works DP 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Urartu TH, I think that administrators are quite capable of understanding whatever happened without me needing to clarify anything.  Sandstein  21:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, the problem is that on my Talk page, it says "To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violations of the principles outlined in WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS in your statement to WP:AE, see the related thread, you have been blocked". I was never blocked for a violation of the underlying AE issue. The AE itself was deemed "not actionable" by Penwhale. Various administrators have been and will continue to be confused by this. A simple deletion of those words is all that it takes to clear things up. Cheers.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, he's basically saying that your usage of {{uw-aeblock}} on his talk page was erroneous as the very first part of the template does say that it is because of an arbitration enforcement. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The block message is correct, because the block I made was an arbitration enforcement block. I see no need to change anything.  Sandstein  08:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am unsure as to which arbitration decision the block was enforcing. Your block comment at AE read However, it is demonstrated in Urartu TH's statement above, which includes, without evidence, allegations against the complainant such as "harassed by Grandmaster", "anti-Armenian POV" and "shameful attempt at censorship". This violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF and the principles outlined in the Committee's findings in WP:ASPERSIONS - and you blocked him on that grounds. WP:ASPERSIONS originated from an arbitration case, but itself is a principle and has no regular remedy attached to it. Please clarify for me as to which case/motion/etc the block can be attached to. (I am not disagreeing with the block, but I think the first part of the block reason used in this case does not apply.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The block was made under the authority of the decision WP:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions, which authorizes "standard discretionary sanctions ... for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions authorizes administrators to impose sanctions if an editor "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". I found that this applied to Urartu TH's (Armenia-/Azerbaijan-related) conduct at WP:AE, as discussed there.  Sandstein  18:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, but... saying that WP:AE is an element of the set all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, even broadly interpreted, may be a stretch...? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

i don't think so. The AE request and the allegations at issue were related to the topic.  Sandstein  04:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

But they were not. The AE request involved a discussion about various statistics in the khojaly article which were discussed and concluded at arbitration, while the block was only for general comments I made during the AE itself about the accusing user's behavior towards me. If I hadn't made those statements, then I would NOT have been blocked. The AE itself was deemed "not actionable". This is really an easy fix. I don't think I'm asking for much. It's simply clerical issue. I would like to reiterate that I did not violate the underlying AE issue on its merits.--Urartu TH (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I see no reason to change anything.  Sandstein  11:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Urartu, while editing an article within the realm of AE enforcement, you became extremely uncivil towards someone who was also editing that article. Therefor, it still fits within AE enforcement. AE is there to deal with content AND behaviour in "challenging" articles/subjects - and this block was based on behaviour DP 12:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

DP, with due respect, that block had nothing to do with statements I made during editing. It had to do with statements I made AFTER the AE request was filed, which were made INSIDE the request discussion itself. I did not violate Arbitration. That is the point. All I did was offer evidence of the accuser's WP:HOUND behavior. The AE itself was deemed "not actionable" by Penwhale (talk · contribs). I was blocked for noting the WP:HOUND behavior during the AE action itself, not before it. Therefore, AE was not being enforced by blocking me. I honestly think this is a minor issue.--Urartu TH (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Catholicism

Hi, I was patrolling recent changes when I stumbled across this page. From reading the content I felt there are some serious issues with the article as it stands. When I read the talk page I see that it's been PROD'd twice with the last result being 'delete (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Catholicism_(2nd_nomination)). I'm pinging you as you closed the deletion request to see if you know why it's still live in the mainspace? Many thanks, CaptRik (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's recently been recreated. But it's substantially different from the deleted version, so it would need a new deletion discussion to be removed again, if it is deemed still deficient.  Sandstein  16:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll take a closer look at the new content. CaptRik (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note that i've added multiple tags to the article and removed some paragraphs that are sourced from a blog and a wikipedia article. I'm not sure i'm qualified to judge notability of the article. I believe that the book exists, i'm just not sure of the significance of it all. CaptRik (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit

Can you restore Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit plus the associated talk page to my user space? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What would you like to do with it?  Sandstein  15:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding citation and possibly restore it if I feel it meets GNG. Found some sources on google books and I'm fairly active on DRV, so I'll make a decision as to which path to follow. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, done at User:Valoem/Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit.  Sandstein  16:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban violations by user:DragonTiger23

user:DragonTiger23 decided to violate his indefinite topic ban recently, although the wp:ae from July 2013 was quite clear [[7]]. It's not the first time he violates his restriction (per wp:ae decision), but not he now declares that his ban was unjust [[8]].

He is again editting in 'List of massacres in Turkey', the same article that caused him to be topic banned [[9]][[10]]. Not to mention that he rejects discussion [[11]].Alexikoua (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the case. Please ask the sanctioning admin or make a request at WP:AE.  Sandstein  13:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For sure, it's been a long time since his last wp:ae. As I see he is already permablocked due to widescale vandalism.Alexikoua (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

COI vs. NPOV

Not sure this is appropriate to continue in the conversation over on the Game of Thrones Season 4 page, but I do want to clarify your last comment on that thread. Of course, blocking our account was appropriate as we were already going to create new, more specific names. My concern is with the rest of the comment.

Your Comment: Hi, I've blocked your account because shared accounts are forbidden, see WP:ROLE. You're all invited to create individual accounts. But please note that you should not write about material with respect to which you have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. If an editor who is unaffiliated with your website considers what you wrote interesting and reliable enough to add it to articles, they are free to do so, but you shouldn't do it yourself. Sandstein 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Game_of_Thrones_(season_4)#Controversy_section

I did read the COI page and your interpretation of it seems to be a lot more restrictive than the page reads. So, I am hoping you can help me understand for the future. The COI page defines conflict of interest: "Wikipedia's definition of conflict-of-interest editing is that which "involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Wikipedia COI

Your standard: whether editors of pages find information to be "interesting and reliable" enough. In comparison, your standard seems to be more subjective, and especially for a page where the discussion is already defining something along one interpretation while deleting alternative interpretations from the coverage altogether, seems to be saying that the dominant ideas control, and are what then constitute the "neutral" opinion.

The only reason we added this article was not at all personal or corporate gain, but to advance the aims of Wikipedia, which is to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia". But for following the standard for controversial pieces, we would not have even mentioned it by name, simply cited to it. As the page reads now, it is preferring and promoting one side of the controversy as the fact, but saying a few people disagree: "The sexual encounter was portrayed as consensual in the corresponding scene in A Storm of Swords,[4] though some readers understand it as implying rape.[5]"

This reflects the opinion of the primary editor, and is not balanced on the face of the overall discussion across the internet and media about that scene in the books and show. This is especially true when considering the standards outlined in the NPOV page:

"Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." Wikipedia Neutral Point of View

I am curious, then, what the limit is, as I am not in any way trying to create more work for people and don't want to be part of any unnecessary issues later. Should we in the future just report pages that are not using NPOV and articulate our position in the new Talk page, and hope that the conversation leads to more balance in the original post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochelle FPW (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Basically, you should not promote your own work, including by citing it in articles. If you think an article is non-neutral or otherwise deficient, you can leave messages to that effect on the article talk page.  Sandstein  20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)