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

Query re Creekolp56

Hello Sandstein, I hope you are doing well. :) I was wondering if you could please leave a notification for Creekolp56 (talk · contribs) at the user's talk page, regarding WP:ARBSCI and the possible remedies therein? I have left several notices at the user's talk page, to no avail. The user continues to violate WP:BLP, by adding sources that blatantly fail WP:RS, to a BLP page within the topic of WP:ARBSCI. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that's immediately problematic. The weblink, while a blog, is a blog run by the reputed magazine Nature, and the actual source is not the blog but the television programme, Channel Seven's Today Tonight program in Australia, which is probably a reliable source. Maybe he just needs help presenting and formatting his sources.  Sandstein  07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will leave a note about that. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of action taken concerning edtior Brews_ohare

Editor Sandstein:

I have filed an appeal of your action banning me indefinitely from contributing to the pages Speed of light and Talk:Speed of light. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation Due to Harassment

User:WGFinley previously blocked me for one week on a spurious pretext, which you recognized in reversing the block. [1] He is now harassing me once more on my talk page. This would not bother me, except that I fear he is trying to build another spurious case in order to block me again. I'd like to prevent another spurious block from occurring, and request your intervention to end his harassment against me. He's claiming I'm being "uncivil", and cites examples. To give just one example of the kind of harassment I'm receiving from him, here are his charges of being "uncivil" against me:

WGFinley: "I just gave you three undiffs from today where you have been uncivil. 1) Making a false accusation of Ling calling you a liar when he simply asked for sources, 2) all caps how he's flat out wrong, you had some other harsher comments you posted and then changed from the talk page [16] 3) ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN by either reacting combatively to your sources being challenged or inventing attacks on you."

An examination of each is instructive as to the nature of his continued personal vendetta against me:

1) The only false accusation here is Finley's. I did not "accuse" User:Ling.Nut of calling me a liar. Here is the exact communication I shared with Ling:[2]

Ling.Nut: "You told me that the sources say that, but very apologetically I must say that I need to see those sources."

JRHammond: "I've given you sources. Are you suggesting I'm fabricating information or lying about what the sources say?"

2) Again, the exact communication, in context:[3]

Ling.Nut: "You're flat wrong...."

JRHammond: "No, YOU are flat wrong...."

3) As for my having "ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN", here is my exact reply:[4]

JRHammond: "1) I am not proposing we draw a conclusion or imply a conclusion, only that we state a proven and uncontroversial fact. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and in order to not mislead them, a fuller accounting of the facts is necessary. Insofar as WP:SYNTH applies, therefore, it demands the fact be noted. 2) This is not original research. Published sources lend significance to this uncontroversial fact, as already noted. WP:OR therefore is not an issue, as I've already pointed out."

As you can see, there was nothing "combative" about my reply to Ling on WP:OR and WP:SYN (or my replies to him on any other issue, for that matter). Nor did my response consist of "inventing attacks" against me.

This is harassment, and the person harassing me has already abused his authority to block me on spurious charges once, as you will recall. Please intervene and assist so such abuse does not occur again. Thank you very much. JRHammond (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not undo your block, Fences and windows did. Sorry, administrators have no special authority to resolve disputes between editors; for how to do this, please see WP:DR. After a quick look, both you and WGFinley seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill here. The diffs claimed to be incivil by WGFinley at [5] do not appear incivil to me. But your getting all excited about WGFinley's criticism, talking about "vendetta" and "harrassment", is unhelpful and is incivil. My advice to both of you is to take some WP:TEA and drop the matter.  Sandstein  06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake. I thought you were the one who reversed the block previously. Ignoring the problem is not good enough, because WGFinley is an administrator who has blocked me previously on a spurious pretext, and I wish to prevent him from doing so a second time on similar spurious charges.

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target." [6] That fits to a tee WGFinley's continued spurious attacks on my character, so how is my pointing this out itself "incivil"? I am in no way, shape, or form being uncivil by observing the spurious nature of WGFinley's personal attacks on my character. If you could find any merit in his charges, it might be another story, but, as you just acknowledged, the instances of "uncivility" on my part claimed by him "do not appear incivil to me". That is an accurate observation. Given that you agree I was not uncivil in the instances he charged I was, obviously, logically, it is he, not I, who is being uncivil. Suggesting otherwise is most illogical. JRHammond (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, WGFinley personally identified me on my Talk page. I in no way try to hide my identity, as my username demonstrates. Nor have I ever identified myself, though, and it's come to my attention that this violates policy WP:OUTING[7], and constitutes further harassment. From the policy: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment..." JRHammond (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for the edit in which you think WGFinley outed you.  Sandstein  06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just doing some basic Google searching regarding the topic in debate as I knew very little on the topic. It didn't take me long before I found an article [10] on a website called Foreign Policy Journal and The Progressive Mind by one Jeremy R. Hammond. Interesting I thought since I knew a Wikipedia user with those same initials.

I would suggest you take a close look at the original research policy, especially the synthesis policy because this is clearly an area you are researching [11] and I think you should have divulged to the editors there you have written and published on this topic. In fact it all makes perfect sense. You made all of four edits before July 4th, you publish your article, someone makes a comment and refers to the Wikipedia article [12] and it appears you begin in earnest to "correct" the Wikipedia article. It is clear by the site and your comments to the article you have a POV you are wishing to highlight, it needs to cease on that article.

I think, in good faith, you should divulge to the editors there your writings on this topic outside of Wikipedia so they're familiar with your research and can determine if that research is becoming a part of the argument on the article. --WGFinley (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[8]

JRHammond (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Providing your full first name is not outing as long as you already edit under what you yourself say is your real name. I see nothing actionable here.  Sandstein  10:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense:

"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name ... job title and work organisation.... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..." [9]

WGFinly posted personal information of mine that I did not voluntarily disclose including my full "legal name" and my "work organisation". That's an indisputable fact. It's also an disputable fact that this constitutes "harassment" under WP:OUTING policy. So are you going to enforce policy or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am asking WGFinley to comment.  Sandstein  13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this pretty much speaks for itself. I've been trying to help keep things civil on Six-Day War (see its talk page). I didn't know much on the subject and so I did a Google search on it. There I found an article written by someone using the same name on Wikipedia. Since JRH has had other editors questioning his original research [10] and synthesis techniques and as you can see by the article's talk page and his own talk page he's not at all receptive to that criticism. [11].

I thought the article was germane since it mentioned original research he was doing as well as a definite POV. I brought it to him on his talk page. As I commented on his talk page page in instances where we have found researchers, scientists or journalists heavily editing a WP article they have done research on that person has disclosed it and in most instances been asked not to edit the article, he has not. He's reacted in the fashion he does with any admin that is critical of his behavior -- subjected me to a torrent of accusations and refuses to acknowledge any poor behavior in any of his diffs. WP:OUTING is just his latest card as it's not outing -- he uses his name as his account. I provided no information other than an article he wrote which happens to be the subject of the article he's been involved in an edit war in. --WGFinley (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"I provided no information other than an article he wrote which happens to be the subject of the article he's been involved in an edit war in." Well, now, Finley, that's not exactly true, is it (much like the rest of what you just said). You're right about one thing -- this pretty much speaks for itself. JRHammond (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

While providing the information about the website you edit is probably in violation of WP:OUTING, I don't see this as such a serious case that it would require the only unilateral action that I could possibly take, i.e., a block. You have the option to pursue dispute resolution or request oversight of the content at issue.  Sandstein  21:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only the website, also my full name/identity. There is no "probably". This is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:OUTING.

"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name ... job title and work organisation.... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..." [12]

A violation of WP:OUTING is a violation of WP:OUTING. There is no content at issue, so I don't see what good WP:DR does me. This is harassment, by WP's own policy definition. So the question is, are you going to enforce the policy or are you not going to enforce the policy? JRHammond (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The only appropriate enforcement action I can think of here is WP:OVERSIGHT, but I do not have that permission, so you would need to contact an oversighter directly. As you have not done so already, and instead copied the offending content yourself to my talk page (above), it is likely that an oversighter would decline the request to remove it from public view.  Sandstein  06:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"...the only unilateral action that I could possibly take, i.e., a block"

"The only appropriate enforcement action I can think of here is WP:OVERSIGHT"

Which is it? Is a block not appropriate? Finley violated policy. Are there to be no consequences for his doing so? JRHammond (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against Loosmark for breaking our interaction ban. In this edit I discuss "Nazi-era German sources about nationalities". One post and a couple of hours later Loosmark posts about Germanisation efforts regarding Dzierzon and Nazis ([13]). I further request enforcement for Loosmark breaking the terms the ban "The other party is not to be informed of, and may not reply to, that request": this edit by Loosmark is clearly in reply to this enforcement request by me. Asking if he can reply to a request doesn't mean he isn't replying to it. Varsovian (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The first edit is not actionable, as I can't see a strong enough link between the two comments. The second edit, on the other hand, constitutes a prohibited interaction and I have accordingly blocked Loosmark.  Sandstein  17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that Loosmark apparently wishes to appeal. I just pointed him towards the AE procedure. Personally, I have to say, at first sight, this block does seem a little bit nitpicky to me – the conditions you imposed for that process of complaint and counter-complaint were rather intricate, and I personally wouldn't have held it against a user if he just couldn't remember that detail about what he was supposed or not supposed to do in this situation, and did nothing but ask what he could do. No objections against the mutual article topic ban, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's nitpicky, but my instructions in implementing the interaction ban were express in that the two are not allowed to reply to enforcement requests by the other unless asked to, so Loosmark should have known better. No interaction means no interaction, and if I had not enforced the ban in this instance, I am sure that Varsovian would have complained just as hard as Loosmark is complaining now. Sometimes you just can't win.  Sandstein  20:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Anyway, I've pasted his request over to WP:AE now, with my comment, so let's just see what other folks say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced comment on AE

Thanks, Sandstein, for your review of Will's post regarding me at Arbitration Enforcement. I see that Will has added a comment[14] in the Results area, which is reserved for uninvolved Admins. Perhaps his comment should be moved. (Note also that Stifle's comment came before I posted my statement.) Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're sick of hearing about this

but if I go to the *^&#$%^ trouble of extensively discussing something with someone (regardless of how much in bad faith I think they're acting), ask for a third opinion, the person who gives his third opinion gives his/her own time to review the situation and provide it, and then both my discussion and the provided third opinion are completely ignored by, guess who, Varsovian, who inserts, again, his own OR, with POV completely opposite to every source included in the article... well, being sick of it is about the right state of mind.

Here is the third opinion [15] "I think the text that Chumchum added (and I just cleaned up a bit) suffices and fulfills WP:LEAD.". Here is the third opinon's provider's edit [16]. Here is Varsovian shamelessly POVing the lead in total disregard of the third opinion [17] (the parade is notable for the LACK of (initial, if he's gonna wikilawyer it) invitation). And this right after getting off a 55 hour block and making disrputive POINT-y edits to the talk page [18].

Yes. I realize this is a "content dispute" (which is starting to look more and more like an excuse to pass the buck around various admin board (AE, AN/I, WQ alerts all have claimed this) rather confronting this problem). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has violated every single content related guideline Wikipedia has. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has consistently engaged in tendentious OR with aim to push a particular POV, despite being warned about it by several uninvolved admins (not to mention editors). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has edit warred with over a dozen different editors over a period of almost one year. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has completely disregarded consensus and outside opinion and persisted in disruptive action, for almost a year. Finally, it is a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has wasted a TREMENDOUS amount of time of a large number of editors and administrators, both on the article and through auxiliary drama (like his filing spurious AE reports against Chumchum).

This simply needs to end. This is a content dispute but I don't see anything in Digwuren discretionary sanctions which precludes applying discretionary sanctions for repeated and tendentious violation of CONTENT policies. It says "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Varsovian has been warned (about half dozen times). Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia by POV pushing and engaging in OR, failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior by ignoring consensus and third opinion (I haven't even gotten around to the persistent incivility). Varsovian has failed to respect the normal editorial process by continually edit warring on the article for the past nine months or so. There's no reason why discretionary sanctions cannot be used here. A topic ban from the article IS THE LEAST that can be done. A full Poland-related topic ban is in fact in order as whenever he leaves the article alone to "hide" from admin scrutiny for awhile he just goes to other Poland related articles and does the same thing with the same negative and disruptive results. And just look at his contributions. 99% of them are Poland related. 99% of that 99% are NEGATIVE (which doesn't mean necessarily revert worthy). He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda. I can throw in some of his own statements as well which show he has problems with Poland and Poles.

If you need all this in form of a AE report let me know. At this point I have trouble seeing why even that would be necessary.radek (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I certainly can't form an opinion or take any action without a very well-reasoned request for arbitration enforcement that contains, dates and explains all diffs that support your contention - and nothing more than that. Statements like "X is a SPA with an obvious POV agenda" are worse than worthless without very convincing diffs to back them up - they are personal attacks and I will certainly sanction you if I see you continue to make such attacks on others unsupported by adequate evidence. But even if you assemble a report that you think is brief and informative enough to be useful to an admin who neither knows nor cares about the history of this dispute, the admin may still conclude that the issue is too complicated for AE (as it now appears, the disputes about this article go way back) and needs a full arbitration case.  Sandstein  19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)