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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IHaveAMastersDegree

It was closed as moot due to IHAMD being checkuser blocked with technical evidence; however, the editor was subsequently unblocked (due to identity confirmed), and therefore this thread should be reopened. I will reopen this shortly. I am leaving this note here because you were involved in the discussion regarding what to do about the editor. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now acted on the request.  Sandstein  21:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am writing to find out if it is permissible to request that the block be lifted temporarily until I have had the opportunity to complete my response. I was inadvertently banned during most of the open discussion process so I was prohibited from editing the discussion page during the time that other individuals were allowed to. I was just preparing my response when the discussion closed so I was unable to post it. Is there a way to request that the discussion be opened long enough to allow me to post a response, so that administrators can consider my defense? If you look at my talk page, you can see that I stated my intention to do that only a few minutes before you posted the topic ban notice closing the discussion. Thank you. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(You may be confusing ban and block.) No, considering that you already had (and used) the opportunity to respond to the complaint after it was made. In any case, now that the sanction has been imposed, it can only be changed by way of appeal, either to me as the sanctioning administrator, or to the AE noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. If you have any arguments that might cause me to reevaluate the necessity of the sanction, you may still present them here.  Sandstein  22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading ambiguity about the scope of IHAMD's TBAN: is it (1) BLP articles related to climate change (using the logical AND) or (2) BLP articles, as well as climate change articles (using the logical OR)? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The former, as I attempted to make clear by using the qualifier "both". The latter would be obviously overbroad and beyond the scope for which discretionary sanctions are authorized.  Sandstein  14:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

John Michael Greer Deletion

Hello, I am not an editor, just a thankful Wikipedia user. I would like access to a page on John Michael Greer that you deleted. I am not the creator of the page, but I need to review this page for research purposes. And no, I am not John Michael Greer, nor am I a member of the large 100-year old religious order that he heads. I am not even acquainted with Mr. Greer other than through his works and the frequent citation of his works.

As I understand the page was deleted because editors were unaware of his "notability." Before I attempt to quantify Mr. Greer's "notability," in short, if you were to ask 10 people who were familiar with Peak Oil who the "most notable" current peak oil theorist was, Greer, along with James Kunstler (who has a wiki page) would be one of the most common responses. But if you were to ask people familiar with occultism who the "most notable" living occultist was, they would all name Mr. Greer.

Within the Peak Oil community his "notability" has made him one of the most sought-after keynote speakers, including keynote addresses at: 5th Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference, Great Lakes Bioneers Conference, Chicago Bioneers, Greensong, etc.

As you are aware, the purpose of a "Keynote" address is to "establish a key underlying theme for an event" Mr. Greer's ideas have certainly helped "establish the key underlying themes" within peak oil and certain environmental circles (especially those associated with "deep ecology" opposed to the new "bright green" environmentalism. This can be demonstrated by his inclusion as the "keynote" piece in the first Dark Mountain Project http://dark-mountain.net/mountaineers/john-michael-greer/

This "Dark Mountain Project" was the primary contribution of the certainly less notable Paul Kingsnorth, who has a wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kingsnorth

This search will verify a long list of environmental and peak oil groups where he has recently been the keynote speaker: https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Michael+Greer+keynote&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Clearly, quite a broad audience of people consider him noteworthy enough to set the agenda for their conferences and festivals, and his celebrity within these communities is considered good publicity!

The reason for this notability is that he is the originator and foremost proponent of a "long decline" theory in opposition to the "crash" scenarios proposed by Kunstler. Mr. Greer's contribution has been so profound that the "long decline" scenario has become the most common view and even Kunstler has changed his predictions considerably to follow Greer's. This theory has become one of the most sited underlying tenants of "deep ecology" influenced environmentalism as well.

• (added later) Mr. Greer has been a frequent guest in many Peak Oil blogs, books, etc, including James Kunstler's Webcast. Indeed, Mr. Kunster wrote a book called "Too Much Magic" (a reference to Mr. Greer's position as Arch Druid) which was instigated by Mr. Greer's theories. http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer

It seems quite impossible to assert that Mr. Greer is not "noteworthy" within this field when he is a perennial keynote speaker and even has books written about him by some of the other most noteworthy people in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, he is an extremely prolific author of more than 30 published books, some of which are best-sellers within their genres: http://www.amazon.com/John-Michael-Greer/e/B001IOFELW

In terms of his contribution to occultism, he has authored some of the best selling and most influential recent books on the topic, including the New Encyclopedia of the Occult. In addition, he is the appointed head of a large initiate religious order with a history that goes back a century. http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html

This is not, as was suggested, a self-appointed, "meaningless," or "made up" role.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will promptly return this page. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC) 

Hi. In terms of Wikipedia, "notability" means basically only one thing: have reliable independent sources written anything about him? See WP:GNG. We do not normally consider other criteria, such as somebody's contributions to some field of study.

The deletion was decided by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Greer. If you want this result overturned, the best way to go about it is to produce references to reliable independent sources about Greer that weren't already mentioned in the discussion.  Sandstein  16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I could pretty easily find many more citations and references, but would this be a start? (Note, I tried to avoid the citations such as by library associations, which were included in the discussion)

John Michael Greer is an American author, blogger and speaker, most notably on the topics of Peak Oil, Resource Depletion, and Occult spiritual practice. Mr. Greer has been a contributing author throughout the Peak Oil Community, including The Oil Drum (http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/john_michael_greer) zero hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-11/guest-post-john-michael-greer-if-four-horsemen-arrive-offer-beer) and resilience.org.

Mr. Greer's works are frequently cited, recommended and discussed by peak oil experts, organizations, and publications, such as the Transition Towns (network) (http://transitionvoice.com/2011/11/transition-plans-meetings-a-waste-of-time-says-greer/) and James Howard Kunstler (http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer)

He has become influential lecturer, delivering keynote addresses for organizations including the Bioneers (http://bioneerschicago.org/category/2013-saturday/) and the Greensong Festival. (http://www.greensongfestival.org/keynote.html)

His recent books include the wealth of nature reviews: 1. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/adam-smith-got-it-way-way-wrong/ 2. http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ 3. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-12-07/review-wealth-nature-john-michael-greer 4. http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/reviews/wealth-nature

and the Blood of the Earth reviews: 1. http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2014_01.php#020489 2. http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/05/04/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth/ 3. http://www.rootsimple.com/2012/10/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth-an-essay-on-magic-and-peak-oil/

In 2003, Mr. Greer was elected the 7th head of the Ancient Order of Druids, the AODA http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html He has published many books on the occult. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

At a glance, many or most of these sources don't qualify under our rules because they are not substantial coverage of (rather than by) Greer, or are self-published sources without professional editorial oversight, such as blogs. Are there any among these sources that meet the criteria mentioned in WP:GNG? You really do need to read these rules I link to, especially WP:GNG, because most of the editors interested in deletion discussions, including me to be honest, only care about that.  Sandstein  20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe all or most of these citations are appropriate for the claims they support. I have read and used the guidelines in providing you sources.

I would assume that Greer would fall under the category of "creative professionals," and that references showing that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" would suffice. Greer meets the criteria in a ROBUST way. I can and have provided many references, including those with editorial oversight. I specifically selected sources that would meet the criteria, including "significant" sources with wikipedia pages themselves. An example given of an appropriate source is that of Slashdot. In no way is Slashdot substantively different as a source than The Oil Drum. Greer is frequently mentioned in print media and in books that have Wikipedia pages, but I thought it easier to provide easily verifiable online sources. In addition, Greer meets the criteria as the author of books which are widely discussed. I provided references for that, but I could provide HUNDREDS more.

Truly, I'm a professional in this field. Greer is discussed by 3rd parties ALL THE TIME. It would be very unusual to hear a discussion of Post Industrial Future within this community and NOT hear Greer referenced or quoted. Really, omitting Greer in such a discussion would be cause to question credibility. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Out of context, would you like some 3rd party references to Greer? There are several above, but I could provide more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought I'd add another discussion of Greer's work from the publication of the Post Carbon Institute http://dev.energybulletin.net/50751 Again, not a personal blog, has an editorial board, is a "notable" organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And here by Skyscript, founded by Deborah Houlding http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_geomancy.html97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And another 3rd party discussion of his work in Patheos http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2012/07/guest-post-the-blood-of-the-earth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And more, frequently these citations actually point out how famous and influential Greer is in Peak Oil circles. "Famous for his Archdruid Report, John Michael Greer is one of the most clear-sighted of authors who are grappling with the multiple crises..." http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ Again, Earthtimes is not a personal blog, but an online magazine. And here Transition Voice, another online magazine assumes that its readers would be familiar with Greer. http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ And here at Transition US: http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(note, corrected some links including the Skyscript link.) 97.83.26.161 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed in Plenty: http://www.plentymag.com/magazine/reviews_green_media.php?page=2 Popular Anthropology Magazine: http://popanthro.org/ojs/index.php/popanthro/article/view/32 And here a response to Greer's ideas by Oil Drum founder Sharon Astyk: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-02-11/pick-your-hat-response-john-michael-greer 97.83.26.161 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

These sources are difficult to evaluate for me; there is a whiff of fringeness or unreliability to many of them. What we normally look for are clearly reliable sources like major mainstream media outlets or peer-reviewed journals or textbooks from respected publishers. That's not to say that your sources are necessarily inadequate, but they are not compelling enough for me to overturn the deletion discussion. You'd need to find a consensus of editors to determine that this coverage is sufficient as the basis of an article. You can attempt to do so by asking for a review of the deletion at WP:DRV and submitting the most compelling of your new-found sources to the discussion.  Sandstein  05:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I think I will leave it to your judgement (or to someone with more time to devote to Wikipedia.) I actually don't disagree that the sources are "fringy." However, the sources I chose ARE the leading sources, organizations, and experts on Peak Oil as cited in Wikipedia's Peak Oil article, and as I have demonstrated, Greer is a constant topic of discussion among those leading sources, organizations, and experts. This is not exactly an "academic" field of study with peer-reviewed journals. Nor are the subtleties of Peak Oil theory the topic of mainstream media attention. And when Greer is mentioned in mainstream media outlets, it is by less-than-reliable sources, like Glen Beck: http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/12/glenn-live-like-people-determined-to-be-free/ It could even be that the whole topic of Peak Oil is too fringy to merit a Wikipedia page, but Greer's contributions have fundamentally changed the discussions within that community. As the links above show, it is increasingly becoming the case that one can no longer have an in-depth discussion of Peak Oil--both as an environmental topic and as a social phenomenon--without mentioning Greer.

Anyway, this has given me insight into how much work goes into maintaining Wikipedia. Sincerely, thanks for doing it. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Appellation d'Origine Protégée

Should this subject have its own article? It currently redirects to Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union but I am not seeing it well covered there on first glance. There is an article for Fracne's Appellation d'origine contrôlée and the respective organizations in the U.S. Came across the issue starting an article on Pain de seigle valaisan. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert about the topic, and how significant this designation is. In general, anything that passes WP:GNG may (but not necessarily must) have an article. Regulatory stuff like this is usually well covered by sources, so the potential for an article should be there.  Sandstein  17:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a rough start. There is a link at the bottom to the rather extensive article on the subject in the French Wikipedia. It seems that different names are given to the designation in different countries based on the language used in particular European Union Nations. So perhaps at some point a broader article might be warrented. I guess that was why it was redirected to the GIS article (which I included it as a see also). Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OK... it's... a start. Generally, articles should cite reliable sources, which your stub doesn't. You may want to address that, and also some spelling errors ("regimine").  Sandstein  11:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments about you

Greetings Sandstein, I'm sure you don't care about what I have to say and I am sure you think I hate you. I don't and I wanted to clarify that. I do think you are too heavy fisted when it comes to AE and sanctions. In a lot of the cases you are, IMO, much to fast to jump to exteremes and particularly lengthy blocks or bans. Wikipedia admins need to be fair and unfortunately I don't think you, with your block them and foget them mentality is healthy for the project. So although I have mentioned your name several times in discussions I wanted you to know that I don't think you are a bad person, I just think you are too extreme in your use of the block button and that sort of behavior isn't beneficial to the project or to the reputations of the admin group as a whole. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, although in general broad claims are taken much less seriously than complaints about specific actions backed up with evidence. If anybody disagrees with administrative actions I've taken, there are well-established venues for independent review and appeal of them. If I may ask, what is it that you are actually here for? You don't seem to have contributed to any articles since September.  Sandstein  17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not any particular action you have taken (although I could name several I disagreed with) but the general notion you seem to have that you are never wrong and that you favor extreme action for even minor infractions of policy. Your "broad discretion" is frequently far too reaching than should be considered reasonable. I am also disappointed that no one seems to care, seemingly because you generally stay close to Arbcom and AE where people generally don't care about and have the attitude of guilt. Since you asked why I keep editing, I really don't know, in general I am fed up with Wikipedia and the hypocrisy. I may edit again someday but there are too many problem and too few people willing to find solutions too them. There are even less who are willing to accept there is a problem. The disgraceful release of Visual Editor is a factor and the WMF's lack of respect for the community insisting we clean up their mess; I'm tired of being told I can't be trusted; I'm tired of the us and them mentality between admins and editors; I'm tired of the general lack of trust of editors and I find it shameful how IP's and new users are treated; we have too many useless templates and too much policy and rules; I'm tired of being told by admins who abusively use the block button that I can't be trusted with the block button knowing that I will almost never use it, because I think blocks should only be used in rare situations and even then only for limited duration; I'm tired of certain Wikiprojects and editors/admins being allowed article ownership over their articles of interest. The list goes on. These are just some of the reasons I don't edit much anymore. I don't even bother to revert vandalism anymore. There are 2 pages on my watchlist that have had vandalism since July and August respectively that haven't been fixed. I want to see how long it takes for someone else to catch it since my efforts aren't trusted or appreciated. It took months for someone to fix the RFA stats link that was still going to the toolserver and there are still a lot of other things linking there that haven't been fixed yet. To be honest, I expect for someone to block me at some point or for someone to send me to Arbcom. That would have been a massive insult in the past but now, with this environment, I expect it. This community doesn't want to change things, they want yes men and women who will go along and get along...which, much to my shame I did for a long time. I partially blame myself for allowing Wikipedia to devolve into the sorry state in which it now can be found. I should have spoken up sooner. Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't really say that I've understood all of this, but in cases of "wiki-burnout" such as the one you seem to describe, my advice is to stop caring about the social aspects of Wikipedia for a while and focus on improving articles that interest you. That's what we are all here for, after all.  Sandstein  18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually its not Wiki burnout per sey and I am not going to edit articles until some of those social aspects change. Its no fun to edit an article just to have some admin revert your change because they "own" the article. Just try making a change to Charles Lindburgh and see how long it lasts. Try adding an infobox to an article under WP Novels or editing an article "owned" by US Roads. This project is losing editors faster than we can gain them because the social aspects make it not enjoyable, we don't have enough qualified people with the admin tools to do the job and we keep losing more. Some of those that are still here shouldn't be. Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock Puppet account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ZeroesAndOnes/Archive

I am definitely not a sock puppet account. I AM however a user of the software Feith. I was made aware of the possible deletion of the article so I chimed in. I don't actively contribute to wikipedia and I still don't understand why the page was deleted as compared to other business pages in the same type of business. Maybe the page was too commercial, I don't know.

Scvff (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

... And this concerns me how?  Sandstein  18:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, your response comes off as brusque. You closed the deletion discussion. I don't think it's unreasonable for an editor, especially a new one, to request an explanation or clarification from you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Which deletion discussion? People, if you want me to do something, you need to tell me what, and link to whatever it is you talk about. See WP:GRA.  Sandstein  07:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feith Systems Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK... I think the explanation I gave for closing the discussion says everything that needs to be said.  Sandstein  11:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal of enforcement action (January 2014)

The appeal of your enforcement action has been declined. The comments made by the arbitrators may be useful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)