Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:32, 3 April 2010

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: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Happy Purim!

Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Procedure re AE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Sandstein, is there any doubt in your mind that wikifan is aware of the pertinent sanctions? Unomi (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the sanctions log contains an entry of a 2008 notification, but as explained at AE, your request does not appear actionable to me.  Sandstein  14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this thread. He is consistently denying taking any responsibility for his edits. Unomi (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This comment is unfair, there is no content dispute that I am trying to get the upper hand in, I am merely asking that he takes responsibility for his actions. The low quality of the source was pointed out immediately, he chose to ignore it and I chose to avoid edit warring over it, taking it to RS/N and then asking him to revert when it was found of poor quality. This is a fairly straightforward case of poor conduct on his behalf. If you look on my talk page you can see that at the end he admits to not having read even the ITIC source which he is recommended to use. I respectfully ask that you to strike the part of your comment where you insinuate it is a content dispute. Unomi (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that your report is too confused for me to take seriously. You refer to consensus at WP:RSN, but do not link to any relevant discussions on that board. You also do not provide, as requested by Stifle, any diffs of actual edits to actual articles that you believe are based on unreliable sources. Absent such evidence, I see no need to change my assessment at this time.  Sandstein  17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is his pattern of specious argumentation. Look at the thread on my talk page,

• 13:01 at the end I give one specific edit and I tell him that the numbers don't match the source.
• 13:05 His response is to repeat the question of which edit.
• 13:11 I remind him that I have just given him 1 particular edit.
• 13:06 He concedes that I have given him an edit but insists that I have not told him what is wrong with it.
• 13:20 I repeat that the numbers don't match up, with specifics (which shouldn't be necessary as there is only 1 set of numbers that is backed up by sources anyway).
• 13:36 He again asks me which specific edit and then proceeds to discuss an edit completely different from the one I just pointed out to him thrice, he also claims that the 1,100 number is sourced to ITIC and not JVL.
• 13:43 I point out that the 1,100 number is not supported by ITIC.
• 13:50 He asks why it doesn't support stating that he has seen many graphs that add up to 1,100 and, crucially, the PDF doc. gives roughly the same amount, no? (he has not read the ITIC source), he again asks which edit I am referring to.
• 13:59 I point out that there is only 1 pertinent graph, on page 55 and it adds up to 521.

As of this edit Wikifan has not edited since. Something is very wrong here. Unomi (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not sanction editors for "specious argumentation". We block them for disrupting the project. These are just edits to your talk page. I still see no diffs of edits to articles or links to RSN discussions.  Sandstein  18:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Specious argumentation and stonewalling is disruptive, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing points 2 and 4. I never asked him to be blocked, I asked him to be reminded to be careful when sourcing. here is the edit that is being discussed above. It is clear that he has not read the source. Unomi (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please also see and note Do not ignore questions., Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste and Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check. Please have a look at the sources at List of modern conflicts in the Middle East Unomi (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I still see nothing but a disagreement about whether the website http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org is a reliable source. I have no opinion about that, but that in itself is evidently not a matter requiring arbitration enforcement. This thread is closed; please supply any additional relevant evidence in the AE thread.  Sandstein  19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do when sources are cast in doubt.

Sandstein, in your estimation, when an editor calls into doubt the quality of a source, is it the duty of the person using the source to bring it to RS/N or the duty of the person casting doubt on the quality? Unomi (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is no one's duty, but either editor may proceed as per Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.  Sandstein  19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, you don't see it as being the duty of the editor adding information to ensure, and if challenged, prove(as in RS/N) that it is properly sourced? Unomi (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The applicable policy is WP:BURDEN, so yes, whoever adds information must ensure that it is reliably sourced or it may be removed. But when people disagree whether a cited source is reliable, this is a normal content disagreement and needs to be resolved via WP:DR. You can't "prove" anything on Misplaced Pages; the best you can do is to get editor consensus one way or the other, and both parties to such a disagreement should attempt to do so.  Sandstein  20:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, duty and prove were poorly chosen words. Would you agree that the way to resolve issues of reliability of sources is through RS/N? I expect that you do, and if so you can see why after User:Itsmejudith, who is a RS/N regular, and not involved in I/P as far as I know, held it to be a poor source, it ceased to be a content dispute. It became a problem of tendentious argumentation and ignoring RS/N consensus. Insisting on using poor sourcing is not a content dispute scenario, it is a behavioral problem and a failure to adhere to our core policies. Wikifan may have disputed the finding of RS/N, but if so he made no move to argue his case there. My error seems to have been to believe that there was a better course of action than simply reverting from the get go. I find unfortunate that I have given you clear evidence of him not reading the sources he claims to back up his edit, yet you seem unwilling to remind him to use proper sourcing. Unomi (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is this WP:RSN discussion that you refer to?  Sandstein  21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the thread. You can see that it has become vastly more populated since the AE started, so perhaps something did come of that after all. Also, the relative finding on the JVL sources has no bearing on claiming that a 2nd source would back those numbers up. That said, wikifan has approached me on my talkpage and I am willing to let the AE go. I would however still ask you to strike the comment where you label it an attempt to gain advantage in a content dispute. Unomi (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi's statement that RSN issued a "finding" is incorrect, and his statement that IMJ is uninvolved in I-P issues is also incorrect. On the other hand, an actual RSN regular who is actually uninvolved (to the point of having zero edits, to my knowledge) considers the source to be possibly reliable, and certainly reliable enough to bear mention with specific attribution. You wouldn't know that from Unomi's statements, of course, because he's got a dog in this fight. Just saying! Hipocrite (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to see into the future, at the point in time when I filed the AE there hadn't been any action on the RS/N for over 24 hours and I was unaware that IMJ was not uninvolved, if indeed she isn't. RS/N got started again when Jaakobou commented on the AE. This is fairly clear to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension. Just saying. Out of curiosity who is this RS/N regular that you mention? Unomi (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

. Hipocrite (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm.. are you referring to yourself or was that the wrong diff? You hate my guts :p I could be saying that the earth is round and you would probably still argue against me ;) The point is, its not a vote, decisions such as these should be made on the strength of the argument. Just because there are some media outlets that have written The seder is celebrated on the first night of Passover, according to the Jewish Virtual Library . that doesn't necessarily make them an RS by default. Its not like I am talking about blacklisting the site, I would just like to see that we use particular attribution and ideally find better sources. Unomi (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus in that RSN discussion either in favor of or against the site's reliability. The entire issue is a content dispute and does not require arbitration enforcement. Unomi, please do not file frivolous AE reports again, and if you want to continue discussing this issue, take it off my talk page.  Sandstein  05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, at the time when I made the AE request the consensus at RS/N had been that it was a poor source for more than 24 hours. I categorically deny that I brought a content dispute to ae. It may be that 24 hours of no response to RS/N was too short a time to wait, but it doesn't affect the fact that wikifan had not read the source. I too grow weary of repeating myself, I hope and wish that you will address the issues that I raise. Unomi (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on deletion

Hello, just wondering why you deleted the page Francois Raffoul. If you look at it objectively (17 books total as authored, edited and translated, 40 articles, 100 lectures and keynotes, named a "Rainmaker" at LSU, Book series editor), I think it is fair to say it is notable, or at least as notable as comparable pages on wikipedia... Would you consider reinstating it?--Lesbossons (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was community consensus to delete the article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/François Raffoul. I am just executing that consensus. You may ask for a recreation at WP:DRV if you have new sources attesting to his notability under our guideline WP:BIO.  Sandstein  05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Hi Sandstein, I was hoping you could give me some insight on the intricacies of WP:OUTING. Would posting what you believe to be a user's IP address(es) on a user talk page and using this to infer their country of residence apply as a violation of this policy? Furthermore, would posting specific accusations of sockpuppetry (ie: I think user XX is a sockpuppet of user YY) break this rule too when not submitted as a SPI, but rather on a user talk page? Thanks for your help, Breein1007 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Yes, unless the user has himself voluntarily made his IP public. (2) No, since this is not personal information.  Sandstein  05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. I was referring to comments that were left here: . Admin EdJohnston advised me to submit a request for oversight and that it wasn't a violation of outing. I submitted the request but nothing has happened yet... Breein1007 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any update? I submitted a request yesterday and haven't heard anything. I need to know how to remove the records of those comments. Breein1007 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an oversighter and can't make the process go any faster. You could probably find out which oversighters are currently active and mail them directly, though.  Sandstein  17:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hi Sandstein,

I'd like to bring to your attention that the other party may be in violation of her interaction ban. She commented about me and my English skills at AN/I. Please check it. Regards,--Gilisa (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Factomancer was describing a prior conflict with Breein1007 which came out of a prior interaction with Gilisa, not commenting on Gilisa directly. Interpreted broadly might cover this anyways, but we didn't phrase it so the restricted parties could never mention the name of the other party ever again on-wiki.

I'm dealing with someone else who's itching to get involved in this at the moment, but I'd like to get this clarified a bit going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was the "interpreted broadly" part in your restriction that I considered relevant here, plus the reference was not made in a neutral context, but in the context of a prior dispute with Gilisa. I think for this interaction ban to work at all the parties really need to be serious about staying the hell out of each other's way.  Sandstein  06:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely in the context, this purely factual reference was neither provocative nor disruptive. The complaint by Gilisa was unnecessary, and I thgink you should have ignored it; this is an overreaction. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Roland. A little excessive SandStein. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please re-factor

Sandstein, please re-factor or substantiate:

1. Your comments to the effect that I sought wikifan blocked. This is clearly not true.
2. Your comments to the effect that I was seeking an out of process advantage in a content dispute. The content was not in dispute in any meaningful sense of the word at the time of my filing.

Cordially, Unomi (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming repetitive. I and two other admins (in the AE thread) have expressed their opinion that your AE report was not actionable because it concerned a content dispute. Nothing of the above convinces me otherwise. You may be made subject to sanctions if you continue to make frivolous reports. I will not comment on this matter further.  Sandstein  10:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WQA

I am sorry that it had to come to this. I hope that we can move forward in a fashion more in line with the 5 pillars. Unomi (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Sandstein, I sent you email again. You did not get one last time. If you would not get this one either, may I please ask you to check on your spam folder? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I've now seen an e-mail by you of March 28, but I have not received a more recent one. I don't know whether I've alredy replied to that e-mail, so, no, you are prohibited from removing content from that talk page, whether by yourself or by proxy through others.  Sandstein  20:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The email from today was about absolutely different matter. I've chosen the option to get the copy myself, and I did get the copy at once. It is really strange you did not get it. Maybe there's something wrong with your server?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange. I've now sent myself an e-mail from another e-mail account (it worked) and through the Misplaced Pages interface (it did not). So, if the subject is unsuitable for public consumption, you should try e-mailing another admin.  Sandstein  20:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important for me that you get my email. Please do consider responding to my email (the one you got) that I will be able to email directly to you. I understand that you would not like to disclose your email address to such problematic editor as I am :(, but I promise as soon as I respond your email, I will delete it from my mail box, and I will never to bother you again, or if you'd rather not, let's wait a little bit longer, and maybe you will get my email from today in a day or so. I do like you to get it, but it is not something that is urgent, not at all. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a strong dislike for doing Misplaced Pages business off-wiki, and so prefer not to receive e-mail if it can at all be avoided, especially by users who I have interacted with in an administrative capacity and with whom may need to do so again. If there is anything that you need to say to an administrator in confidence, I would prefer that you find someone else. Thanks,  Sandstein  04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Content on User Pages

Hey Sandstein. Can you point to policy backing this edit? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is presumably some rule to that effect, but I would have thought it to be common sense that a user talk page (or other nonarticle/-nonuserspace page) is not the place to draft articles. This inconveniences other users who try to use the talk page for its intended purpose, i.e., communication. The same reason would apply to anyone who would insert a long draft article into the body of another talk page such as WP:ANI; they'd quickly be reverted and probably blocked if they repeated this. Besides, the draft article contained at least two images of unclear copyright status.  Sandstein  16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is presumably some rule to that effect, !

Yeah, I'd agree it's not good form to do what he's doing. But I think User_page#Editing_of_other_editors_user_and_user_talk_pages would suggest stripping the content might not be appropriate. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unless it's helpful. One could also consider drafting articles on one's user talk page while blocked a form of block evasion; after all, blocked editors are not supposed to edit Misplaced Pages and are allowed access to their talk page only because they may need to request unblock.  Sandstein  16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh... "helpful".... A word that can be interpretted in so many ways. Helpful to whom I wonder. Anyways, I think I've made my point and taken some of yours. My best to you sir. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Direktor evaded Blocking

Dear Sandstein, i`m reported that blocking user:Direktor has evaded the 48 hrs., reversing some pages for the Republic of Dubrovnik and Dubrovnik, this is the link of Direktor IP 83.131.220.241. --186.105.66.150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.66.150 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a matter for WP:SPI, I'm no checkuser, sorry.  Sandstein  16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Factomancer block

Two people have commented in support of his complaint that the interaction ban doesn't cover making reference to the other party, with one of them saying it seems like a severe overreaction on your part. I have put it on hold if you would like to comment. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I've commented there.  Sandstein  16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the user need to clear their cache or something technical like that?Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban enforcement in general

Here's a recent and rather interesting example of the interaction ban enforcement . The blocked user is very valued, contest contributor, who submitted around 100 feature pictures.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:72.160.188.204

Hello. You might want to lock that talk page as the IP user is apparently not too happy with our unblocking policies. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pyongyang (restaurant chain)

On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pyongyang (restaurant chain), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Israeli / Palestinian editors

Some aspects have calmed down since I started WP:ANI#Enough but not all, including the new AE report/request. I was actually considering a 31 hour full protect on some articles to try and separate things, but on review it seems like it's moved into project and user talk space conflict largely, so even article protection won't help much.

I don't know that an ARBPIA enforcement spree will particularly help, or is useful, but your AE experience may be relevant to judging that.

Let me know what you're thinking, I'm looking for input and consciously not doing anything until I get a good night's rest and review again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I've replied at the ANI thread.  Sandstein  10:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on ANI. Perhaps this will all calm down overnight. That is probably a forlorn hope, but much preferable than having to wade in.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging AEs

Hey Sand, 1) I'm concerned that 2 seperate AEs are being merged. Can we try to seperate them out? I fear that someone might miss comments about themselves as they are not in the right section. 2) As we've had calm and collected conversations before regarding contentious I/P editors (see above "Content on User Pages"), I'm a little suprised you would support topic banning me. NickCT (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Yes, it's a bit confusing, but we currently seem to prefer discussing both sides of the problem, as it were, in one place. (2) Well, the one does not rule out the other, does it? Much probably depends on how you four react right now.  Sandstein  20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

2) No 1 does not rule out the other, but if you've experienced an editor in the past to be calm and level headed when debating, you should probably give them the benefit of the doubt when another editor complains that they are not.

Frankly Sandstein, I wonder whether you are best person to preside over this matter. From my brief experience with you, you seem to come down more harshly on editors on one side of the I/P debate. Would you prove me wrong and point to an example where you've spoken strongly against someone blatantly pushing pro-Israel POV? If not, might I respectfully suggest you recuse yourself from this issue? NickCT (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, both sides (or rather, their on-wiki holy warriors) tend to annoy me just about equally. But just off the top of my head, look at the block logs of Mbz1 (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), AnonMoos (talk · contribs), all recently blocked by me for disruption related to what you refer to as pro-Israel POV.  Sandstein  21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well admittedly you do seem willing to pursue editors in blantant policy violations involving pro-Israel/anti-Arab POV pushing. Interesting to note that two of these examples were BLP violations. You are perhaps particularly concerned with this policy?

Frankly though, I think the shinanigans you're protecting against in the examples you offer are of a slightly different nature and degree to what you seem willing to criticize Verx, Supreme, and myself for. Your actions remind me somewhat of User:Malik_Shabazz, who though he clearly leans to one side, often shows neutralish tendencies.

My suggestion to you, as to him is that you can win more friends and quiet more detractors if you make an extra effort towards moderation ( this detractor included ). You might start by noting that on top of this recent AE, Mbz1 has a long history arguing with admins over trivia. Take this gem for example. You really think you ought to be arbitraily grouping those 4/5 editors together in the current AE? My call was for minor slaps on the wrist to be administered.

Regardless, the AE seems to have concluded without blood being drawn. My best, NickCT (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You assume that I am at all interested in winning friends or quieting detractors among editors involved on either side of AE-type disputes? I am not. But you are right in that the current multiparty mudfest needs more careful consideration, hence my reluctance to hand out indiscriminate topic bans at this point.  Sandstein  22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One should always be concerned with winning friends and quieting detrators. At least in the case of those friends who can, with reasonable effort, be won, and those detractors who can, with reasonable effort, be quietted. Again, my best NickCT (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested

It's not entirely clear to me what your summary is intended to mean. Are you proposing that I recuse myself altogether from returning problematic hooks from the queue to the suggestions page? If so, I very much doubt I can comply with this request. Removing hooks from the queue for further discussion is part of my responsibility as a DYK administrator, not to return problematic hooks would be tantamount to negligence. I should add that merely returning a hook to the suggestions page in no way gives me an unfair advantage and cannot be considered as an abuse of the tools. It simply means the hook will be subject to closer scrutiny, which surely cannot be construed as in any way harmful to the project.

If on the other hand you simply meant I should not outright delete hooks from the queue but be sure instead to return them to the discussion page, I am certainly happy to assent to that. Although I felt at the time I was justified in deleting Mbz's hook, I quickly acknowledged it was an error of judgement - which we all inevitably make from time to time - and from the fracas that eventuated I had already resolved never to attempt this shortcut again. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, neither. What I recommended is that you do not act in an administrative capacity, e.g. by removing hooks from the queue, in cases where you are involved in a conflict (especially a content disagreement) with the editor who wrote the hook. Instead, you should propose that another administrator do this, in keeping with WP:ADMIN.  Sandstein  07:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you don't mind, I think I am going to have to respectfully decline your recommendation. It is only going to impose an onerous formality upon me that will make it more difficult to effectively do my job, as well as potentially allowing inappropriate hooks to make it to the mainpage. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the requirement for administrators not to take action in situations where they are involved in a dispute is policy, see WP:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools. You are of course free to disregard my recommendation, but if you do so in a topic area covered by arbitration sanctions I can readily imagine this resulting in sanctions against you.  Sandstein  07:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thankyou for clarifying that. I just wanted to know where I stood. I'd be interested to know just what "advantage" you think I might stand to gain from returning a hook from the queue for further discussion, per the policy, but otherwise, I will have to consider filing a request for amendment over this ruling, as I believe it is quite unjustified by the circumstances and only likely to harm the project rather than help it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that my recommendation is a "ruling" subject to an amendment, because it does not restrict you, but only reminds you of existing policy. Administrators may have good administrative reasons to remove a hook from the queue, such as when the hook is in violation of WP:BLP. But if administrators merely disagree with the content of the hook, then removing the hook from the protected queue page amounts to a misuse of administrator tools in order to gain an advantage in the respective content dispute and should be avoided. Removal of a hook undoes the admin action of another admin who had previously added the hook, which is another reason not to do it without very good reason. This is especially so if you are also involved in editing the article or in other content disputes with the same editor. Basically, you need to decide whether you want to get involved into a content discussion (are the sources adequate, is the hook neutrally worded etc.) and refrain from the use of admin tools, or whether you want to act as an administrator and refrain from making content decisions.  Sandstein  07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that you have yet to explain how removing a hook from the queue for further discussion constitutes an "advantage" to the administrator making the removal. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not personally, of course, but a situation where an administrator and another editor disagree about whether a hook or an article is neutral or accurate enough to go on the main page constitutes a content dispute. Because only the administrator is technically capable of removing the hook from the protected queue page, but the other user is not capable of putting it back into the queue, the removal of the hook decides the content dispute in the administrator's favor, and thereby constitutes a misuse of administrator tools to gain an advantage in the content dispute.  Sandstein  08:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, removal of the hook in no way "decides the content dispute in the administrator's favour". The validity of content concerns is decided by consensus on the suggestions page or on the DYK talk page, they are not decided by the administrator removing the hook. That's what removal of the hook is for - to ensure that there is a clear consensus to promote the hook before it is promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the content dispute is to be decided by consensus, but you may not at the same time participate in the content dispute (by offering an opinion about whether the article is neutrally written) and decide, in a manner that is not easily reverted because it involves administrator tools, whether there is consensus to promote the hook. For the same reasons, administrators may not e.g. first !vote in an AfD and then close the same AfD.  Sandstein  08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that removing the hook from the queue "decides" nothing. The decision about whether or not to promote the hook is decided by consensus, not by the admin making the removal. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal may not decide the matter definitively, but it does give an advantage to the side of the content dispute opposed to promotion in that it prevents, at least for the time being, the hook's promotion, and it does so in a way that non-admin editors cannot undo. This is why such a removal, like any other administrative action, should be performed only by administrators who are not involved in the content dispute.

I do not believe that I can explain it much more clearly than that. As I said, you are free to disagree with me in this regard, but you risk sanctions if you use your administrator tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute in an arbitration-covered topic area.  Sandstein  08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)