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

My vote was forgotten

My clear support for lifting of Rumiton's ban seems to have been forgotten. I hope you will reconsider the count. I am a minimally involved editor and only for a short period of time. Thank you.(olive (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

AE board

Hi Can you look at here: [1]. The first three/four bullets are really about the violation, but the rest is about why his ethnic map is ridicolous (for example erased half the Kurds from Kordestan province and all the Armenians from the current Nagorno-Karabagh/surrounding regions). I am sorry it is alittle long, but I had to explain some details on how his self-created map does not correspond to the sources he is citing for the map (this shows falsification of sources to create nationalist exaggerated maps) --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I normally wait for the defendant to have time to respond before evaluating an AE request.  Sandstein  17:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay but he is not that active in English Wikipedia..but I will wait.--Xodabande14 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick question if you do not mind. What is the usual time-line given to defendant? --Xodabande14 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just be patient please, as long as the other editor does not edit we are not in a hurry. And in the meantime, could you please shorten your submission? It's too long. In principle, all you need is a list of dated diffs and a brief explanation why each diff is problematic, not a novel-length exposé of your views about sundry disputes and conflicts.  Sandstein  19:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...I divided into four section. The long section is about how the user creates exaggerated maps and inserts them. I have asked Folantin and Dbachmann to also comment there. So if they do, please feel free to ignore it. But to make it short..note the user has erased for example all Armenians from Nagorno-Karabagh region (a topic you might be more familiar with than say Iran) in the maps he inserts. --Xodabande14 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Khoikhoi is an administrator. How else could he block Ebrahimi Amir for being an SPA [2]. See his talkpage and he gave Ebrahimi Amir the first block. I have shorten the request but it is important to note that creating nationalist ethnic maps in wiki commons and the reverting other users and forcing them in articles without discussion are all connected. I needed to explain the nature of the ethnic national map (for example has erased all Armenians from Karabagh and other groups from the region..) . Yes I hate to point this out , and it might sound silly to you, but it is bad behavior to makeup stuff and then put them in Wikipedia, revert other users who disagree with him and not discuss his edit. --Xodabande14 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to right here, but just for your information. The person I filed a complaint against is now is well aware of the AE motion. I asked him to comment again [3]. Instead though he tries to defend his self-created map (which cites nationalist sources) against scholarly maps of University Columbia and Texas map and non-scholarly sources. You can be the judge of it on the talk page [4]. Either way the talkpage also shows it is pointless. The person was blocked for being SPA. He cites websites, and numerous non-scholarly non-WP:RS sources to justify a POV. I do not expect you to have full knowledge of the area, but you can ask someone that. I wrote: "Also per your block log, you were supposed to discuss (and get feedback) controversial edits before reverting. Not after three-four days when there is an AE motion." which I mentioned to him. --Xodabande14 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making your case here. You have submitted your request, now please stand back and let administrators determine whether it is actionable.  Sandstein  18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just wanted to inform you that the user is now aware of the case. Thanks. I won't write anymore and comment on the AE board..--Xodabande14 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

E4024 again

Hi Sandstein. With the block recently expired E4024 has again breached his ARBMAC restrictions: [5] and [6]. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, time for a longer block.  Sandstein  19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Brianhd71

I agree with the sentiment. Perhaps it's not always best to consider WP:ROPE, but that's what I did. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable approach, if you have the article watchlisted. Regards,  Sandstein  19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎

Am I reading this right? A sanction can be overturned "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard". Since the activity being discussed is my sanction (not Wikipedia or editing in general), the division is between those editors who were "involved" in my sanction, and those who were "not involved". In this case, the editors who were involved in my sanction were BotNL, Steven Zhang and me. So those editors "involved" in the sanction are not included in the consensus. Only "uninvolved editors" are counted for the "clear, substantial, and active consensus". Thanks. MOMENTO 08:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion you refer to which resulted in your sanction.  Sandstein  09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to the section on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎ page which explains the requirements for an appeal to be upheld.[7] I am also interested whether a sanction can be applied without evidence of wrongdoing being provided as per "The Principle - Burden of proof and personal attacks" as stated by ArbCom which states "the onus is on the sanctioning editor to provide the evidence to prove his claim" [8]. The reason I ask is that it appears that this requirement is not always followed and as "Level of Consensus" makes clear "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.[9]. MOMENTO 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you ask of me, advice or some action? And about what? (See also WP:GRA.) If you want my opinion about whether certain editors should be considered involved or uninvolved in any discussion about an appeal of sanctions by you, I can't give a definitive answer, as that would depend on the interpretation of any of their thousands of edits that could be considered an indication of bias.  Sandstein  21:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we take the Rumiton Sanction for example, you have counted Steven Zhang is an "uninvolved editor" when he was "involved" with BotNL in the decision to sanction Rumiton and me. So he doesn't count for the consensus. You have said that Olive is "involved" but she had nothing to do with Rumiton's or my sanction and none of her edits indicate "bias". So by my tally we had Sandstein, Rich Wales, KeithBob, Jayen, Cailil and Olive agreeing the sanction should be lifted and IRWolfie the sole "uninvolved editor" for keeping it. So a 6 to 1 majority want to end the sanction, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". Am I missing something? I don't feel confident to appeal in this arena when so many errors are made. And what is your position on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page? Are you the only admin who manages this page. Thanks. MOMENTO 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one approve of your suggestion at AE to request an arbitration case. I've felt for a while like that's necessary, but other editors have told me I shouldn't do it because I haven't had an account for long enough. (I edited for more than a year as an IP, but that evidently doesn't count.) I've hoped someone else would agree with me there should be a case, and request it themselves.

It's important to realise that although there have been lots of recent declined requests about race and intelligence, in all of them lots of uninvolved editors and several arbitrators have said a case is necessary. I'm not sure I understand why one hasn't been opened yet. There have been many more than these four, but four good examples are this arbitration request, [10] this one, [11] this one, [12] and this AE thread. [13] Some uninvolved editors who said in those discussions that Arbcom should examine these issues were A Quest for Knowledge, ErrantX, SB_Johnny, Seraphimblade, and Youreallycan. Both of the times Arbcom proposed a motion to make the one-way interaction into mutual bans, the motion failed because they felt a full case was necessary, and several arbitrators said they would support opening a case if someone requested it in 2013. ErrantX said in those requests that he planned on requesting a case, but said in this comment that he changed his mind because he was threatened.

There's something wrong with the idea that an arbitration request can be prevented by threatening the admin who was going to request it. But if you think there should be a request, you could pick up where ErrantX left off. After reviewing these discussions, do you think that's a good idea? Akuri (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean me, I'm not aware of being threatened by anybody. Thanks for linking to these earlier requests, but they seem to have only limited overlap with the editors now making allegations in the AE thread. If the AE request does not result in a referral to the Committee, then everybody is free to make an arbitration request of their own, but I can't venture a prediction as to whether or not that would be helpful, or likely to result in a case.  Sandstein  21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant ErrantX was threatened, not you. From what he said in the linked comment, that's why he didn't request arbitration. There might be limited overlap between those requests and the current one, but many of the issues are the same, especially Mathsci's battleground conduct and his apparent gaming of other editors' one-way interaction bans with him. Akuri (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, after the AE thread was closed (in my view prematurely), some of the discussion that occurred there is continuing here.

Now that the AE thread has been closed, what is your final opinion about whether matters should be taken to Arbcom? If you think arbitration would be premature at this stage, then I'll wait, and for now try to keep contributing to R&I articles in the abysmal editing environment. But if you think a case is necessary, as I said above I would greatly prefer if the request could be made by an AE admin instead of me, because I've been told by multiple parties that an arbitration request should not come from someone who's had an account for as little time as I have. Akuri (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Hello. I have a request here. You can add your own comments.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)