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

Happy New Year!

Dear Sandstein,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Out of town

I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone)

I've copied this to WP:AE.  Sandstein  10:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Request permission for outcome of DRV

I was a bit curious and didn't quite have time to address this issue, but what was the reason behind Involuntary celibacy's DRV closure as disallow recreation? Upon reviewing the debate, the outcome was 6 - 8 in favor of disallow, however, I can't find a policy based rational for disallowing recreation. I was wondering if you could take a look at this article and let me know if you see any reason why this does not pass WP:N. If not I was hoping for permission to recreate with immediate nomination for AfD I feel it will pass. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say "disallow", I said "There is no consensus to allow the recreation of the article". Which is what was the case. The "delete" outcome therefore continues to control the fate of the article. As to the draft, that depends on whether it contains substantial new sources not available in previous discussions. If that is the case, I recommend that you ask the previous AfD closer's opinion.  Sandstein  17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tiny note

Friendly note for you, Sandstein. The book actually mentions 7 and I confirmed and cited all inline. However, Boston Society of Film Critics did not award Sarandon in 1988, it awarded Melanie Griffith instead.[1] Minor note - White Palace was not a co-win according to Hollywood Reporter.[2] However, the numerous errors and frankly improper Razzies directed at Cage are more concerning. I have not gone through and weeded out all the errors yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, amended accordingly.  Sandstein  17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please also see this comment about dubious nature of that particular book source, itself, and questioning whether it actually satisfies WP:RS. — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Remainig the reference after ...

my repply was erased.
Hi Sandstein,
I am not going to discuss why, but I'd ask you to add the corresponding discussion's link to Nishidani's reference: "User:Igorp lj protested its lack of NPOV from the start".
Thanks in advance, --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are asking, but that discussion is closed, it's over. There's no point in amending it.  Sandstein  14:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Again: it's not about the Case as a whole. It's only about Nishidani's claim in my address what is remained as a fact after you erased my reply to it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean.  Sandstein  22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel

FYI, about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel, the IMDb section about the awards is NOT user-generated (nor user-updateable, or user-fixable). It is directly managed by the IMDb staff. Just for record. --Cavarrone 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but it appears that the text at issue didn't even match what was in IMDb.  Sandstein  14:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

I have a question related to three sources Cwobeel had added to an article. The first in this edit and two more Edit one and Edit two. The trivial one-sentence or less mentions, without supporting evidence or analysis was used as evidence of Islamophobia now "fomenting Islamophobia" which does not match either. The claim is defamatory and it is being discussed, but Cwobeel and Coffeepusher asserted that because the source exists - it can be used in the lead and on the biography. Most interesting is the first source, which is essentially "Islamophobes Steven Emerson" and immediately states (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh). The problem with the latter (sourced to Think Progress by the book) is that it is irrelvant, not in context or accurate. Though that's all the entire book states - never returning to Emerson at all. This was the source used to confirm and accuse Emerson of being a bigot.

@Atsme: has taken a bit of too far of stance on legitimate criticism, but made the first push to remove it. I consider it a BLP issue and a clear problem to call anyone or state they have been labeled a bigot in such a fashion. I dislike subjective conjecture or attacks about a person's beliefs as a "matter of fact", especially contentious ones. Pundits and political commentary or labels are the bane of BLPs and Wikipedia for this reason. Two POV pushers might balance an article to more or less neutral, but it will be a wall of "crap people said". Though the article has others which exist like : In response to these comments, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that he "choked on his porridge" when he heard them and observed that Emerson was "clearly a complete idiot".[68][69] Is the sort of reactionary comments that are not appropriate for a biography, is not the same as accusing of being a bigot. I do not know how best to respond to these sourced, but improper usage of sources for controversy and reception surrounding a person. That being said, the "praise" is equally problematic and I rather be done with the "reception" section as a whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay ... in which capacity do you think I can help here? As an editor, I'm not familiar with the topic area and unlikely to produce great insights.  Sandstein  18:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh - a valid point. I was looking for your interpretation of whether or not the trivial assertion of bigotry from the material was sufficient weight and reliable for inclusion. Sort of how Birther conspiracies on Barrack Obama are not included or given any attention and inside reside in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Anyways, I don't like BLPs because this political bickering is always non-neutral, just was seeing if calling someone a bigot or "fomenting bigotry" (bigot replaced by Islamophobe) is a valid BLP issue. But it is not the end of the world. It is technically "sourced" even if it is not in the claimed trivial source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Link

I have indicated that the evidence of the stalking I spoke of is in the page to which I first linked. I regret that you did not review the entirety of the page, which I would have thought would have been expected under the circumstances. Also note how your rush to judgment regarding who a comment was "clearly" directed at is itself very likely wrong, or at least a rush to judgment regarding my motivations which is of course completely different from what I was thinking at the time. Perhaps you might take the time to review the entirety of pages linked to before casting rather poorly founded judgments. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussions related to the block of Eric Corbett

Good block

[3] I agree with your rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• What a poor block. Tell me, how long have you been waiting with fingertips poised on that one? Cassianto^Talk 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• What makes you think I would be?  Sandstein  19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• A knee-jerk block such as yours speaks volumes. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect motives. Cassianto^Talk 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think you should ask Lightbreather to stop posting on Eric's talk page, now that he's blocked. He's removed these so far, and I hope she gets the message not to continue posting there. [4] EChastain (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that users shouldn't leave talk page messages that are clearly unwelcome. But I'm active in this context in an arbitration enforcement capacity, and would prefer to remain active in this capacity only, to prevent concerns of personal involvement in any of the conflicts that may be behind all this.  Sandstein  19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• EChastain, when you write "He's removed these so far..." you make it sound like I've posted at Eric Corbett's talk page multiple times. The fact is, I posted to Eric's talk page ONE time[5] since notifying him yesterday of the enforcement request. The ONE comment was within the enforcement request notification discussion, after another editor compared me to a witch,[6] and Eric replied, "The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across..."

I can't speak for the other women, but I had never heard of Eric before this exchange at WT:AN in July 2014:

Lightbreather: Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?[7]

Eric Corbett: the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[8]

A reminder of this exchange was what I posted in response to his "The only females" remark. Of course, he deleted that reminder because he prefers the narrative that I swooped down on him from outta nowhere and complained of incivility for no reason. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Considering that I tried - twice - to just get his comments removed per Scope of topic bans, but had to go to AE to get action, I think a 48-hour block was very kind. Short of ignoring the breach completely, the only kinder block would have been 24 hours. Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

I am pretty sure that arbitration enforcement is not mandatory and the arbcom never meant for us to not be able to consider each situation individually. You action in regards to the complaint against Eric goes directly against the consensus that was forming there. You took it upon yourself to ignore the opinions of others, cast a supervote and act unilaterally and then close the discussion. I think you know how Eric will react to this and I think this action was not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not going to fight this action however I felt like voicing my opinion. Chillum 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback - I mean this seriously, even if we do not agree in this case. I did consider the individual circumstances of the situation and saw no reason not to enforce the remedy as in any other case of a topic ban violation. Because AE actions are individual admin actions, they are not based on, and do not require, consensus - in this sense, every AE admin has a supervote. Unlike – apparently – others, I do not know Eric Corbett and am not involved in any social circles he may be a part of. How he will react is therefore no concern of mine. Either he complies with the topic ban, in which case the block will have served its purpose, or he does not, in which case he will get blocked for increasing periods of time. What else he may or may not do is his own business.  Sandstein  22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because an action does not require consensus to perform does not mean you can still perform it when a consensus not to do it exists. If you had done this on your own when there was no discussion opposing it then I would not be here. It is the disregard for consensus that concerns me. This is a subtle point but a very important one. The whole point of the AE page is to discuss enforcement, clearly consensus is not banished from the room. Chillum 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I do know Eric and his level of disruption has gone from a 9 out of 10 down to a 2 out of 10 since those sanctions. This coupled with his prodigious article contributions has caused me to go from wanting him banned to wanting him to stay. I also knows he reacts in a self destructive manner when he feels he has been treated unfair. Regardless I think the damage is done. Chillum 22:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, evidently I can do it, because I did, and I also may do it, because the arbitrators who wrote the relevant procedures quite purposefully left out any references to prior discussion or consensus. AE is supposed to be a fast-track enforcement venue, not just another drama board in the vein of AN(I). I'd also argue that the point of AE isn't to discuss, but to request enforcement (it's called requests for enforcement, not discussions about enforcement), and that there wasn't a consensus not to take action. But that is a somewhat academic issue, because there is a place for consensus-finding in the AE process. It's just that it isn't at the enforcement stage but rather at the appeals stage. If and when an appeal is made, then the consensus of other editors or admins becomes relevant, but not before. – As to Eric Corbett, I'm of the view that sanctions, and rules generally, should be applied in an equal and predictable manner no matter who they apply to, or what contributions these people have made, or else they are meaningless. If you think that these sanctions have helped to curb disruption by Eric Corbett, then they can only continue to do so if they are actually enforced.  Sandstein  22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please see the recent ds alert regarding editing on the GGTF project. This ds alert regarding discretionary standards appears to apply only to behavior on the GGTF project pages. Is this right? EChastain (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to whole topic areas, in this case, "pages relating to the Gender gap task force" - that is, not only the project pages as such.  Sandstein  22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. To me it seems like its not a topic ban, it's a project ban, per the wording of the "alert" I gave a link to above. So you are saying that this means that everywhere on wikipedia, on talk pages of editors and other projects and edit summaries, if GGTF is mentioned by an editor, that mention is subject to discretionary standards? EChastain (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see generally WP:AC/DS and WP:TBAN for how the scope of such sanctions is generally described.  Sandstein  22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So at a wikiproject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention, editors are not free to mention anything regarding GGTF without worrying? There is no where that this can be discussed without worry? EChastain (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not engaging in any misconduct such as edit-warring, personal attacks or similar, then there is no reason to worry. But, yes, misconduct related to the GGTF can be addressed through discretionary sanctions on every page of Wikipedia.  Sandstein  22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion but this really doesn't and shouldn't need to be another circus, lets all go back to editing the encyclopedia. If people have their concerns there are other places they can take it to - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You are a disgrace to Wikipedia. If there was a way to desysop you, I would wholeheartedly pursue it. A proverbial admin on a power trip that cannot see further from the nose. Not that its founder is much better. No such user (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Although stand by, your comments maybe removed like mine were as we only hear of sycophantic backslapping comments here. Cassianto^Talk 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't and think you should stop harassing here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fortunatly, I couldn't care what you think. Cassianto^Talk 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Can somebody explain to me what the deal with Eric Corbett is that an ordinary block for an ordinary topic ban violation creates this much excitement? I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into one of Wikipedia's complicated social networks to which special rules apply, or whose participants think that this is so. Not that I care about these matters, but it seems really peculiar that this one user attracts that much attention.  Sandstein  22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend a block for no such user for throwing out personal attacks here. Sandstein is I were you id archive these discussions and just move on there are other places these people can go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, no, editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page, although I would wish that they'd be a bit more specific about why they object to an action rather than just making very general allegations of bad faith and the like.  Sandstein  22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Its up to you, Eric has people on his side though, you may not have known it but you opened up something here, otherwise, as I think you said this would be more of a routine block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And where would that be KnowledgeKid? Cassianto^Talk 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The talk on Eric's talk-page should speak for its-self shouldn't it? With all the things said about Sandstein its becoming a dog pile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As Sandstein has said "editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page", which is what I'm doing. And if you don't like it Knowledgekid then you know where you can go don't you? Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice WP:BAITING with that loaded question. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)So I will be more specific: I've been around quite a while, as well as you are. You have a worrying tendency to apply bureaucratic, mindless reading of any rule around, and apply it in the harshest manner possible. In fact, I think you chose AE as your favorite field of operation, because there you can hide behind (never explicitly passed to you, AFAIK), authority of ARBCOM, so that your rush decisions cannot be reversed or easily taken into question. In this particular thread, there was a consensus between admins that the infraction was mild and/or provoked, yet you took it upon yourself to block, knowing that (being AE) it's an irreversible action. What you don't know, or realize, or care, is that this block can only further increase the amount of bad blood and drama on this site. The sooner your bullying actions are removed from the equation, or at least you are desysopped or banned from the AE, the sooner this will be a more pleasant place. Now you can block me, I don't give a fuck. No such user (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. WP:ARBGGTF Enforcement Eric Corbett got off pretty light with a 48-hour block. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well done, Lightbreather! You haven't often gotten what you wanted on Wikipedia, but today is your day. Enjoy it--you got one of our best editors blocked on a trivial matter, a technicality. Sandstein, the "social circle" of this Corbett, whom you don't claim to know, is called "Wikipedia". Don't pretend this is all just new to you. You know, I got made admin and considered it an honor to be given a kind of power that is my own to wield but is limited, practically and ethically, by the community, in particular a community of admins. Yes, DS allows you to make your own decision, and thus in this case you were indeed free to wipe your ass with what the rest of us had to say. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		People can have faith and confidence only because of guys like you. OrangesRyellow (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that.  Sandstein  22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

lol. Cassianto^Talk 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Hi--just realized that I should have told you about this AN/I report, given that the editor's grudge is against you, and it's easy enough to miss the notification that comes with wikilinking a username. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 02:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)