User talk:Sandstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 6 January 2018 (→‎Amendment request: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
  • 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


Obvious sock

Hello Sandstein, I believe User:Dank Chicken is a sock for the following reasons: He registered on 17 November, his very first edits shows that he is a veteran editor who has probably spent years at Wikipedia:[1], he registered his account at Commons only 4 days after and immediately started creating several advanced maps:[2]

He has spent his time at Wikipedia/Commons almost exclusively editing Arab-Israel conflict articles, including pushing a strong pov that occupied territories "are part of Israel":[3]

I asked him at his talkpage and he admitted that he has had a previous account, he has then refused to give me a real answer to what his previous account name was:[4], anyone with half a brain can easily see that he has spent several years at wikipedia/commons, how is it possible he doesn't remember his old account? does that make any sense?

Considering the large amount of editors who where sanctioned/blocked/banned several years ago (2009-2012) its basically impossible to locate the sock master, so a SPI wouldn't help here. I think you should just block him per being someones obvious sock. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what's a "sock"? Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean you have to accuse me of things. I did NOT spend SEVERAL YEARS at Wikipedia before, I probably spent a few months.
Secondly, I never claimed that the occupied West Bank is part of Israel. You are under the false belief that the annexed east Jerusalem and Golan are occupied. If you scroll though the Israel talk page, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with me, and I'm always listing reliable sources and Wikipedia precedents to back up my proposals.
Thirdly, I'm not editing Arab-Israeli conflict images on Wikimedia commons, I'm creating one map. And I've never included it in a Wikipedia article yet because all the shit last month made me pretty aware to not edit such articles yet... Dank Chicken (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Supreme Deliciousness: Without an indication of who Dank Chicken might be a sock of I have no grounds for action. If you think you have more substantial evidence, please submit it to WP:SPI where the experts on such issues are. Sandstein 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sock: [5], my gut feeling is never wrong. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet VolunteerMarek yet again calling a comment by DHeyward a "lie" is not a personal attack

My comment on the AE board regarding DHeyward was not meant to be a personal attack, but was a frustrated and angry retort to what I see as an obvious effort by certain editors to use whatever meager means they can muster to eliminate any opposition to their POV they can. I see this as insidious and wrong and to the great detriment to this website overall. That it was said with less eloquence than usual should be no surprise...we see VolunteerMarek and MrX and others at AE almost every week complaining about someone. It has gotten to the point of ridiculous. That is all I havet o say on the matter, here or elsewhere, Sandstein.--MONGO 19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your statement to be taken into consideration in the context of the current WP:AE request, please make it at WP:AE, not here. Sandstein 19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He did and someone removed it. It is clear that you guys are looking to ban him for a tban violation that doesn't exist. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, claiming I have a long block log I'd a bit unfair and is in itself an aspersion...as I have not been blocked for nearly 10 years. I stated this is well at AE but I am frankly surprised you would even suggest I be topic banned from article space I am not active on. You want to ban me from AE fine...I already have now done that to myself anyway.--MONGO 20:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion: Bluetech

I believe the page for Bluetech/Evan Marc/Evan Bartholomew/Evan Marc Bartholomew was unjustly deleted.

User:Theredproject provided evidence for the deletion using only one search under a moniker that he does not use regularly. More results will show under his other aliases, including several from The Untz(no Wiki page, but 400k Facebook likes): a popular entity within his subgenre. He has also released albums with Steve Hillage, a Prog legend, and with other already cited individuals.

I understand there are many pages you all probably review, as there must be lots of garbage on this site. However, I believe this is not one of them, and I find your process a bit unthorough. Such a process affects everyone: including yourselves, Wikipedia, and the relevant page entities. This sort of deletion inherently directs users away from Wikipedia, which is good for the site as a whole. However, I ask that you be a bit more thorough going forward.

Thank you, John Finigan J04 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The page was deleted because a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluetech unanimously determined that it should be. With respect to musicians and most other topics, we generally care only about coverage in reliable sources per Wikipedia:Notability (music), not such aspects as who they collaborated with or how many social media followers they have. The required coverage was found to be lacking in this case. Sandstein 14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO's AE case

Reading your close, you either, despite your assertion, did not read the comments made in the case or blatantly misrepresented the alternate proposal at hand. Poor form, either way. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your disagreement is noted, but I did read what was written at AE. Sandstein 14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you blatantly misrepresented the alternate proposal? --NeilN talk to me 14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I did. Sandstein 14:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate proposal does reflect that Wikipedia editing does not occur in segregated namespaces. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it poses the same problems: you can't, in my view, prohibit a person from discussing certain topics but not from making content edits. Content editing requires the ability to discuss one's edits. Sandstein 15:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You posted the above and still claim to read the case comments? The proposal allowed MONGO to use talk pages, just not cast aspersions or talk about systematic biases. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, in that respect, my comment of 15:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC) below. Sandstein 15:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cross-posting (copy and pasting) this from NeilN's talk because I see the discussion is ongoing here.

I just wanted to say that I followed this case, and while I agree that a TBan seems excessive, I also sympathize with Sandstein's position that there really didn't seem to be anything else to be done. I don't think Sandstein made a bad call, per se.
But I don't agree with Sandstein's position that there was nothing else to do. The Rambling Man has a customized editing restriction imposed upon him; the admins there might have used something very similar. I know TRM's sanction was an Arbcom case, but I'm not aware of any compelling reason why AE couldn't impose a similar editing restriction, considering that it's at least deliberated using customized editing restrictions in that very discussion. So possibly changing the sanction from a regular topic ban to a prohibition on casting aspersions or making borderline or clear personal attacks (I would emphasize that to establish a clear boundary: if there's doubt, it's a PA and MONGO should not have said it) against any individual editor or group of editors.
What do you think? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note my disagreement with your sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "prohibition on casting aspersions or making borderline or clear personal attacks" would be pointless. All editors are already under such a restriction, as documented at WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc. The sanction imposed here was precisely because the editor at issue did not heed those conduct standards. Sandstein 15:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't be pointless. Generally speaking, casting aspersions and making personal attacks are things that happen constantly at the various drama forums and on controversial talk pages. Lots of editors call out "disgusting" bias in others, accuse others of "blatantly" violating NPOV, of "egregiously" pushing a agenda, etc. Most of the time, this is done without diffs and in a confrontational tone. As things currently stand, we have an appropriate tolerance for such behavior because we seem to (at least implicitly) understand that cracking down on such violations with an iron fist would be more disruptive than letting them happen.
But one could impose an "iron fist" sanction on specific editors to avoid further escalations. Let their behavior be judged by a very strict reading of policy, while we continue to let editors who haven't put themselves into a similar situation have the same leeway they've always enjoyed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All editing in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions is already subject to heightened conduct expectations. See WP:AC/DS#Expectations. It would therefore, in my view, be erroneous to respond to misconduct in such areas with additional conduct restrictions. The misconduct that we need to respond to already shows that the editor at issue is not able or willing to conform to either the normal or the higher DS conduct expectations. It therefore normally needs to be addressed with blocks or bans. Sandstein 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MPants is right. The general low-level incivility is ignored. The proposed sanction makes it clear it wouldn't be in MONGO's case. And you know that your above statement is advertising that you're now going to be the "civility policeman", right? --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to disagree on this issue. I'm also not volunteering as policeman, but I do believe that our civility standards are binding and should be enforced. Sandstein 15:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sandstein, yes that is the policy, but in practice it is rarely enforced. Discussions of DS topics rarely get more scrutiny from the admins than other topics, in my experience (and I edit in a few non-DS areas, but also in politics, fringe theories and BLP areas, so I think I have a good representative experience). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that I am an avowed liberal who tentatively disagrees with claims of systemic political bias on WP, who thinks MONGO's comments were outrageous. If there is any bias I bring to this discussion, it is one in the opposite of the direction I am pushing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, civility is often spottily enforced, but that is not a reason not to enforce it, especially in egregious cases as here. If you think that spotty enforcement is a problem, as I do, then you should help enforcing it rather than complain about the instances in which enforcement occurs. Sandstein 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that spotty enforcement is a problem, as I do Generally speaking, I don't. I'm of the opinion that except for blatant BLP vios and legal threats, enforcement should be lax, to encourage discussion. For example, I don't know how many times I've seen an exchange start with battlegroudn rhetoric and end in a solid consensus. It happens a lot. Now, I'm not entirely certain that the current level of laxity is ideal, but I'm not convinced it's not, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All editing in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions is already subject to heightened conduct expectations. See WP:AC/DS#Expectations. - Sandstein has it exactly right. Far more efficient and effective to have editors self-regulate on the DS articles than to overburden the AE noticeboard or individual admin patrollers with enforcement interventions. The fact is we have failed to regulate these articles, the AE board is scarcely better than ANI recently and then there are the inevitable appeals and mustering of POV alliances. Sure swift simple sanctions are the best enforcement. Trying to thread the needle with bespoke sanctions is just an accommodation to editors who need to stay within the expectation Arbcom has prescribed for these articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are genuinely serious about violations of civility, I suggest you remove or strikeout your comments about MONGO's block log. Regardless of the merit of your decision, using blocks that happened a decade ago as justification for a topic ban only makes you look bad and seems incredibly uncharitable and uncivil. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Although the blocks are old, which I noted, they are relevant insofar as they indicate that this is not the first instance of misconduct by MONGO. And that is a fact that is relevant, for me, in determining the sanction to be imposed. Indicating this is not incivil. Sandstein 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If the conduct was inherent to his presence here, then there would be more recent blocks or logs. The fact that you go back a decade is indeed trying to muddy the water. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Sir Joseph. People can, and often do change. Especially the type of people who constructively edit WP for years. If one has to look back 10 years to find an example of someone being sanctioned for incivility, then it's false to claim they have a propensity towards incivility. They had such a propensity, ten years ago. But they don't anymore. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like MONGO's leaving, though I understand it--but in this difficult situation I cannot find fault with Sandstein. MONGO can appeal, of course, and there are other things that can be done. Quibbling over one of the details is not likely to be fruitful; if it hadn't been for the recent edits we wouldn't have gotten to AE. I hope that MONGO will, I don't know, retract those statements, or some of them, and I send him best wishes, thanking him for all the good work he has done. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see my proposal above as quibbling over a detail, but a means to entice MONGO back to editing, while simultaneously addressing the problematic edits. To be completely fair, were the case handed to me to decide alone, I'd have told MONGO to remove the comments, promise never to do it again, and closed the whole thing. I very strongly disagree with what he said in the edits in question and elsewhere, but they were a single instance of disruption. Quashing it and moving on is the best course, IMHO. If and when MONGO kept making further such attacks, I'd have imposed a restriction like I suggested above.
With all that being said, I don't think Sandstein did anything wrong. I think Sandstein just doesn't see things quite the way I do, and made the best call they could have in light of that and their knowledge of the situation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"detail"--I was talking about mentioning the block log, that's all. The problem with your suggestion ("were the case handed to me") is that we can't tell people to do this or that. I mean, we can, but typically they don't do what we want them to do since *gasp* they are, or at least claim to be, autonomous human beings. And I don't think this ban would have happened if it was just one remark--there were a few, and the "pattern" (exemplified, I suppose, by reference to the block log), played a part in that. Of course editors (and MONGO) will disagree on whether there was a pattern, and how significant it was, etc. Please note that I didn't propose anything to solve anything, and that I agree that your "solution" would have my preference also--but Sandstein knows, I believe, that he is not some deity who can make those things happen. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein knows, I believe, that he is not some deity who can make those things happen. Wait, what?! He's not?! Awww man....
Actually, I agree with your points about making people do things. I should have said I'd ask MONGO to remove and promise not to do it again, and if they didn't, then I'd consider taking further steps, such as my proposal, or (more likely in the face of stubborn refusal to back down) the topic ban that was actually implemented. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sticking my oar in where it may be unwelcome) MONGO's allegations about systemic bias are fallacious, at best, and the specific comments that led to this were unacceptable. Nevertheless, I'm uncomfortable with decade-old blocks being a factor leading to such a dismal outcome. If the ultimate objective is to improve the encyclopedia, then this is clearly a fail. (For what it's worth, I see that more as a failure of policy than a failure of you, Sandstein. Either block logs should be expungeable or policy should be amended to categorically negate their relevance after a reasonably long interval.) RivertorchFIREWATER 23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why people think block logs shouldn't be a (admittedly small) factor in determining if someone has exhibited a pattern of behavior? It's moot anyway because there's a recent and abundant history of damaging personal attacks, threats, and aspersions. No one said MONGO should leave the project. By his own admission, he rarely edits articles in the American politics topic area, so the sanction is exceptionally mild in my view.
There are too many people here advocating on behalf other people who unambiguously violate our policies, yet I rarely see outrage when multiple editors are accused of liberal POV pushing, and accused of damaging the project without any evidence whatsoever. The failure here is the mental acrobatics performed in defense of the indefensible!- MrX 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is almost certainly an English issue. NeilN proposed a topic ban from "talking about the perceived biases of other editors or their edits in this area". He meant it as biases of either the editors or their edits. That is appropriate English. Sandstein appears to have read it as talking about the perceived biases of other editors or talking about their edits in the area. That would also be appropriate English. The grammatical construction is ambiguous. Let's not go overboard in assuming bad faith where there likely is none. ~ Rob13Talk 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that MONGO's departure is unfortunate, and I hope he takes some time to cool off and reconsider his participation in the project. Not particularly long ago I was ArbCom topic-banned from a fairly broad area for an indefinite period of time, not just three months. I was certainly angry and frustrated by that sanction and considered hanging it up too, so I sympathize with MONGO's feelings entirely. But it's possible to use these events to step back, take a breath, find other ways to contribute and move on with one's editing, and eventually even move past it entirely. One thing I think we should all get past is the idea that a topic-ban sanction (as opposed to one for, say, sockpuppetry) is a permanent scarlet letter. Sometimes it just means you got in too deep and needed a nudge to step back. I rather consider my experience a badge of honor now - "I Survived The GamerGate ArbCom." So MONGO, if you're reading this, please take some time to go through the thought process I had to ponder a few years ago. I think you'll come up with the same answer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein has just threatened me with (I'm not sure what)—"may be sanctioned for disruption"—because I twice posted a question under his majestic AE close. I add my voice to those who object to the topic ban and to Sandstein's behaviour in general at AE. There is no point in having these AE discussions if one admin repeatedly arrives to ignore the consensus. Yes, it is true that sanctions can be imposed by individual admins without discussion, but that does NOT mean that, once discussion has taken place, the admin can act as if it has not taken place. SarahSV (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now becoming endemic, that admins like Sandstein threaten sanction, or plonk blocks on individuals, instead of actively discuss issues with them to resolve problems. I think 2018 will be know as the year of admin recall. What's great is the community is now actively working against such behaviour from admins and arbs, and community consensus will ultimately triumph, regardless of how many long-term editors are driven off the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Hi, why was the page First world map Mahabharta deleted. It had proper references. Some other technical issues arose due to lack of proper understanding of wikipedia tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekingdivine (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Sandstein, the MONGO decision has led to such concern (and a considerable expenditure of volunteer time) that it seems clear there is no consensus for it. Would you please reverse the topic ban and re-open the AE discussion? That way, discussion can continue, in one place and with a minimum of fuss, until a consensus is reached. SarahSV (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I decline. Procedure is clear that consensus is not required for AE actions (indeed, admins are explicitly allowed to overrule emerging consensus of other admins, albeit only with caution), and that AE actions can only be reviewed in the course of an appeal by the sanctioned editor, which you are not. Any expenditure of volunteer time is because of you. I'd like to note, though, that contrary to what you wrote in the AE talk thread, I did not "ignore" the existing discussion or consensus (of which there was none), but I took the views of other admins into account, and reduced the topic ban from indefinite to three months because of the concerns others raised. Sandstein 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is going to be prolonged discussion in multiple places, then probably AN or ArbCom with the loss of time and energy that entails. When I came online today, I wanted to work on content, not this, and I'm probably not alone in that. And no, the discussion is not because of me. It's because of your contentious decision. No matter how right admins think they are, when there is this much concern, including from uninvolved admins, it does not speak well of an admin if he or she ignores it. Please reconsider. SarahSV (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing less than shameless WP:BADGERING from someone who refuses to respect, or even acknowledge, the process outlined by Arbcom. Beware of boomerangs.- MrX 23:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A boomerang for someone asking open and honest questions? X marks the spot, you're the man! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good one The Rambling Man 😆. Keep 'em coming.- MrX 23:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhh. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, are you open to recall? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say about empty threats and New Year's Day whiskey bottles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it Sandstein to answer the question Marek, your intrusion is, once again, completely unwelcome and unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I'd guess your thinly-veiled question about recall is also "completely unwelcome and unnecessary". You had your mop taken away from you, so I think you would be better suited to improving content than picking fights. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Troutman? Apt. Please allow Sandstein to answer the question, your intrusion is completely unnecessary, and actually, let's compare notes, how much improvement to content have you made this year? The last month? Oh.......... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not open to recall. Sandstein 23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See you soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the back and forth here helps anything guys... maybe push off and let things be. Threats don't help anyone. I realize my own comment is slightly obnoxious so will push off.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Amendment request

Please see [6]. SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=819024361"