Jump to content

User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/January

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


Arbitration amendment request

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the amendment request you filed has been closed and archived. The Committee decided to remove the logged entry from the case page, but felt that there was no further action needed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.  Sandstein  09:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Leehla Alcorn

You are aware that the votes were being votestacked by SPA's? Your closure was premature I rescind this as I only object to you vote tallying all the votes. Avono (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

There aren't votes, only opinions. But with this numerical balance of opinions, a consensus for deletion appears impossible to obtain unless we would need to discount almost all "keep" opinions - which doesn't seem to be the case. At a glance, most of those favoring retention don't seem to be SPAs.  Sandstein  22:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
So it's not a majority vote, but yet it actually is a majority vote. The merits of the comments of people supporting the articles deletion were utterly ignored due merely to the number of people on the "keep" side. 74.5.71.44 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus in Wikipedia deletion discussions takes both the number and quality (in terms of policy compliance) of opinions into account. To delete a page, a consensus to delete it has to be reached, and this seems impossible both from a numerical and a policy point of view here. The numbers are clear, and as to quality, the notability of a person or the lasting importance of an event is something about which people may in good faith disagree, so it's not something a closing admin can decide who's right about merely by looking at our policies and guidelines. This means that there is no way an admin can find anything other than a consensus to keep in this discussion.  Sandstein  09:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sandstein!

Happy New Year!

Sandstein,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 10:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

AE on race

In an AE case regarding WeijiBaikeBianji, you wrote that "they assert without attribution that a living person has "devoted his writings to promoting white-supremacist beliefs", in violation of WP:BLP, and they misleadingly do so in an edit labeled as "minor" and with the deceptive edit summary "fix unmatched parenthesis error". This amounts to sanctionable misconduct". It appears to me that claim of a misleading minor edit is based on a misunderstanding; the edit summary WBB added when he reinserted the white supremacy label was "Let's discuss on the article talk page. Some people do that kind of thing, and sources identify that". Only after that did he do the minor edit. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I read that wrongly. I've amended my message on their talk page accordingly.  Sandstein  14:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Another try at Flula Borg

I've attempted to re-work my references as you suggested here and I'm wondering if you might take another glance to see what you think. Does the article still need work of any kind or do you feel it's now viable? Thank you for your time. I can't tell you how much your help means to me. -- edi(talk) 06:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, that looks much better. It's sufficiently different from the deleted version that you should be able to move it back to main space, although others may still renominate it for deletion if they still have notability conncerns.  Sandstein  14:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you SO much for all the help! -- edi(talk) 15:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

You deleted Representative of Saint Helena, London. I was working on seeing how many valid references I could find, and add, when the article ran out of time. I saved my draft at User:Geo Swan/Representative of Saint Helena, London. Could you graft the revision history and talk page of the article to User:Geo Swan/Representative of Saint Helena, London?

Can a draft be brought up to meet GNG? I haven't made up my mind. If I decide it can't, I'll place a {{db-u1}} on it. But first I would port the draft to a non-WMF wiki with less stringent inclusion criteria. In order to do that, in a way that honors the original contributors' remaining IP rights I need access to the original contribution history -- hence my request for the history graft.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, userfied. I've no opinion about the notability of the topic, myself.  Sandstein  10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As an experienced AE admin

As someone I know to be an admin experienced in dealing with arbitration enforcement requests, I would be interested to hear your views on whether you think that the dispute in the Acupuncture topic area that is currently subject to an arbitration case request could be successfully dealt with by enforcement of the pseudo-science discretionary sanctions. Please comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture (input there from other AE admins stalking this talk page is also welcome!). Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Regards,  Sandstein  17:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

your assistance please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali Hussein Khenaina. He is in the news again because he was recently released, to Kazakhstan. I request userification of the article's revision history and talk page please, so I can review the previous material, and make a decision how best to cover the new information.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not much there in terms of sources, at any rate no media reports, just OARDEC military files about him and a link to The Guantanamo Docket - Muhammed Ali Hussein Khnenah.  Sandstein  17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Is this heads-up based on looking at the last revisions, or did you look through the entire revision history?
User:Iqinn, a wiki-id who was finally indefinitely blocked for edit warring and sock-puppetry, devoted well over 15,000 of their 22,000 edits to material I originally contributed. They routinely exicised valid references, with questionable justifications. They gutted the bulk of over 100 articles in the 48 hours before they were indefinitely blocked.
So if the last revisions you looked at lacked valid third party references it may very well be because this is one of the articles Iqinn gutted of third party references.
I'd prefer to go through the revision history myself. So I hope you will reconsider my request for userification. Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I did go through all major revisions and that's all there was. Sorry, but I don't think that restoring this content would be helpful to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Christian Fuchs (sociologist)

Wikipedia says the "Christian Fuchs (sociologist)" page was deleted. Can you tell me why this page was deleted? Thank you. Shudipta Sharma (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the article Christian Fuchs (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted because this community discussion concluded that it should be deleted. The gist of it is that the subject was considered to fail our inclusion criteria as documented at WP:BIO and WP:PROF.  Sandstein  10:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm sounding so frustrated over on Asami Sato talk - it's because I am.

While I've heard about people like this, I've never had to deal with anyone who just sashays in and demands everyone accept their view of all things, or otherwise they'll start an edit war, and who just routinely changes their demands and misrepresents the article and sources like this. I've heard this is a recurring problem on some articles but I've never had to deal with it myself and it's driving me a little crazy. I'm used to that in politics, sure, but... yeah. Anyway, sorry if I'm getting too snippy. I really do try to work with people but this person is just... their way or the highway. Apparently. Solarbird (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand, this noncollegial approach to editing can be very frustrating. Though of course an edit war always consists of least two people, and their request to remove content unsupported by sources is reasonable on the merits - it's just that the way that they're going about it is not. My approach in such situations is to focus the discussion squarely on the content and its sources, rather than to waste a lot of time reproaching one another for each other's conduct. As soon as there's a solid consensus for a particular approach, even if it does not include one editor, it will be much more difficult for that editor to continue acting disruptively.  Sandstein  09:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layourbattleaxedown

I feel that the discussion was closed incorrectly. The !vote total was 3–3, with one of the keeps being a "me too" !vote. I'm not heavily invested in the discussion or the fate of the article, but I feel like it should have been at least closed as no consensus if not relisted. Deadbeef 06:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I overlooked your "delete" opinion. I'm changing the closure accordingly.  Sandstein  09:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Deadbeef 09:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Asami Sato

Thanks for notifying me. I've unprotected it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Good move on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_7#Je_suis_Charlie Bearian (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!  Sandstein  21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Bechdel test

Hi, the edit you reverted here was by me - forgot to log in. Just wanted to note that the link being dead was not my main reason for deleting that bit of the article. The statistics cited really say nothing important and are even potentially misleading. The total amount of money earned by one class of films versus the total amount of money earned by another class of films says nothing about the relative money-making potential of the two types of films. Rather, it mainly speaks about the size of the two classes. It would be much like saying that because more of the money in your city exists outside of your neighborhood than inside it, your neighborhood must be poorer than other neighborhoods. But this is true of any neighborhood, because no neighborhood contains more than half the money in the entire city. (At least, in sensible cities!)

So I feel like this statistic is really not useful. Thoughts? Should I have written about this on the talk page before deleting the statistic? — flamingspinach | (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll reply on the article talk page.  Sandstein  11:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)

You closed an Afd of the article-in-question, as no consensus. However, an editor went & changed that article to a redirect, today. I don't want to get any deeper into that dispute, but I'm concerned about that editor's action. Not sure what to do about it. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, in principle, redirecting an article is an editorial action. It has nothing to do with the AfD - particularly one that resulted in "no consensus", i.e., had no actionable outcome. So the redirect should be discussed on the talk page and is subject to editorial consensus like any other edit.  Sandstein  18:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the 'change' per WP:BRD. It's likely to simply be the same result again. I'm concerned though, that the bold editor will merely revert, rather then open a discussion & press his argument. I can't afford to be in an edit-war & won't be. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of unconfirmed exoplanets

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unconfirmed exoplanets. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  19:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping indevidual settlements articles clean

Hello Sandstein, I would like to know what is the right channel to raise the problem where articles about different settlements became a horror description of the neighboring Palestinians. While I don't try to discount the importance of that issue, it has very little to do with the info people will be looking for when they look at a settlement page. If the community decides it should stay in, I will accept it but right now it looks like people with bias just fill them with pro-Palestinian propaganda. How does a discussion like that being started? Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, content disputes should be resolved as described in WP:DR. If you want to edit in this area, you must absolutely learn how to talk to and compromise with editors with a strongly different point of view without engaging in edit wars, or you may find yourself excluded from the topic one way or another.  Sandstein  11:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ragnar Lodbrok

A user keeps adding original research to the article of Ragnar Lodbrok, trying to tie the Viking to the Merovingian Ragnachar and even the Arthurian legend... Not a single proper source is ever given. I'm afraid this might get out of hand. I tried to put my reasons on the article's talkpage, but he just launches in a diatribe and keeps adding the contented subsection. As you reverted some of the edits as well, you might want to join the discussion. -- fdewaele, 27 November 2014, 18:31 CET

Thanks. Timestamp to allow archival.  Sandstein  11:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Sandstein/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I don't read messages intended to circumvent topic bans.  Sandstein  17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do read this one, the content of my message was not about the topic area, but just informing your something about Mike, and his ability to respond in a timely manner to the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

WingMen

hi there,

I am a producer on WingMen. I do not have much time to deal with this as we're currently in edits of the show, post production, in talks with lawyers and the network to possibly premiere the show this weekend or the next.

Everything on our page is fact. We hired a young lady to create this for us and was told not to use our Facebook page as reference as we have an official site and articles written. I will endeavour to correct all these but need some help.

Is there any way you can remove the request for deletion? I have no idea how to resurrect the page.

Stevepassionplaymedia (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingmen (TV Series). Topics only get articles on Wikipedia if they have been covered in sufficient detail in reliable independent sources, as described in WP:GNG. In your case, that would be articles describing the series's creation or reviews in reputable entertainment media. Unless there are now such sources, there's not much you or I can do here.  Sandstein  19:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul's unblock request

Hi Sandstein, I've copied Ashtul's unblock request to WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Violation?

A user was indefinitely topic banned from the military subjects of India and Pakistan. Question is that if he voted on the AfD of Indian Century, a small stub that mentions about "military" twice, it would be considered as a violation of topic ban? I am quite skeptical about the 4th line of WP:TBAN here. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say yes, it's likely a violation, because the article does go on at some length about India's military power.  Sandstein  11:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You may want to check[1]. Now it is confirmed that it is a violation of TBAN.[2] What I should do next? I would just remove his comment and let him know that he should not participate in these discussion and it falls under the current TBAN. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Warned[3] for now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
[Redacted sock comments]
@Callanecc: what you have to say if this is a violation of topic ban or not? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
[Redacted sock comments]
[Redacted sock comments]
I agree with the comment by User:Nick. If The SawTooth will cease adding new comments to the AfD we can leave his existing comments in place. The admin who closes the AfD can decide what weight should be given to the comments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone and TheSawTooth, please do not continue to discuss this here. The topic ban at issue is a community sanction, and any enforcement request should therefore be made in a community forum or to the administrator who found consensus to impose the ban.  Sandstein  16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I have removed his comments from here because he was a sock of a indefinitely blocked troll. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard the Forester

My name is William Forester. I am the foremost expert in the world of the Forester surname. I assure you - RICHARD THE FORESTER existed (Richarcio Forestarius), thrived and died. b. 2/13/1049 - d. 6/12/1078. He was knighted after Hastings. I own his battle shield and wristguards, verified by the largest auction house in Europe. His sword is buried with him. Your deletion of his page from Wiki is a travesty and embarrassing. Please, show me your master-level genealogical credentials and I will show you the exhumed details of DNA showing Richard's match to Baldwin. Good grief. (Bill the Conq. called him Deus sauciavit "God's Dagger") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.189.225 (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Whàt page is this about?  Sandstein  05:39, 22 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.[4] Minor note - White Palace was not a co-win according to Hollywood Reporter.[5] 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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Thank you, sir, and I do apologize for all the time this has taken up with your Admin team, regardless of the outcome. If I stay here I will definitely choose my words more carefully in the future. All I ask is that what was brought up be taken in context and that the rendered judgement is fair.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:09, 26 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)
I need permission from you for allow recreation, Coffee has not been activate as of late. This topic has been controversial, due to disbelief and disregarding of sources, however each source I've listed is secondary and reliable, I have added an additional six sources. I have no intentions of an immediate relist, instead, I would like you to objectively look at the article in question. It does meet the requirement based on WP:N to be listed, then I will request other admins to take a look before relisting to the mainspace. I feel many of the disallows are politically motivated as oppose to policy based and your approval is the first stepping stone. Valoem talk contrib 18:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI mention

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Good block

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

Reflecting on the commentary below and elsewhere, I'm persuaded that a clear warning (that referring to GGTF again will trigger a block) would have been preferable. It would have clarified the boundaries for Eric - which is what was needed - with the least amount of disruption. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 27 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. [7] 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[8] 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,[9] 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?[10]
Eric Corbett: the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[11]
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)

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)
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)

Criticism

Noted. Please continue any discussions among people who are not me elsewhere.  Sandstein  15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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)
  • Had it been any other editor you wouldn't even be here but because "one of our best editors" it all of a sudden is a huge deal that requires hours of debate like even the "best editors" never can make a mistake or do any wrongdoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The block was harsh and ill-thought out. That's why it has generated such a drama. Your right inasmuch that this pantomime has been caused by Eric being blocked; anyone else would have received a reminder of the ArbCom result and the other party also warned. As it stands Eric has been blocked and the other party is dishing out awards like he's some kind of victim. What, and there's no agenda? CassiantoTalk 06:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well I don't even know him/her so I can't be blamed for that. What pisses me off is Sandstein's seamless ability to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and his/her failure to recognise that it takes two to tango. Rather than be fair and block/warn Lightbreather, he/she is now accepting awards from them which gives the impression that he/she endorses Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose, thus causing this ridiculous pantomime. Lastly, Knowledgekid, I would remind you to remain civil seeing as you are so quick to finger point at others when they make similar comments like the ones above. CassiantoTalk 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "accepting" any awards, but I can't prevent editors leaving them on my talk page, much like I can't prevent you from offering your opinion. I have not examined the conduct of Lightbreather because my activity here is limited to arbitration enforcement, and no claim of misconduct by Lightbreather that falls under any arbitration remedies or discretionary sanctions has been made, and so I have no opinion as to whether her conduct might have been objectionable. If you think that there is such misconduct, you or anybody else can make an enforcement request at WP:AE. If not, Cassianto and Knowledgekid87, I ask that you please conduct any further discussion between you two elsewhere. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You have accepted it by retaining it below. If you were unwilling to accept it because of your "activity" at ArbCom, then you should leave an explanatory note saying "Owing to recent events, and because I am involved at ArbCom, I'm unable to accept this barnstar because....". But you haven't. You claim to be limited not to get get involved when it comes to dishing out warnings fairly, but clearly not involved enough to accept glitterati from involved parties. If you are "uninvolved" then you should not be accepting awards. Lastly, and like I have said before, I will not be making a request at AE because it would not be treated fairly as it's run by a load of Eric hating yes men who don't know their arse from their elbow. CassiantoTalk 14:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto. Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving (Personal attack removed) is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting. yes men who don't know their arse from their elbow This is grossly uncivil, and, I believe, the number of admins at AE is small enough for this to be considered a PA. Behave yourself.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you drunk? CassiantoTalk 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars

Also noted.  Sandstein  15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. CassiantoTalk 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disregarding it and warning Lightbreather aside, I disagree with such a use of barnstars. Blocks are not to be celebrated. They may be solemnly endorsed, but to celebrate them is to forget their true nature: they are like the scar left behind when cutting a disruptive branch off a tree, and no one would argue that such scars are anything but ugly and that the tree would not scream if it had a voice. ekips39 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this; apologies for misinterpreting Lightbreather's intentions. Furthermore, I don't disagree with the block -- AFAICT Eric did break his topic ban. ekips39 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.

Chinua Achebe 

--Mrjulesd (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Edit Summary on Cwobeel's page

Sandstein, the link you supplied on Cwobeel's webpage to the AE discussion doesn't work. The link you provided ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=643973454#Cwobeel) ) just gives a bad gateway error. I believe the link you're looking for is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Cwobeel. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Strange, the link works for me.  Sandstein  22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

EC violating his ArbCom sanctions

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision#Eric Corbett prohibited: "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion." Yesterday, he made these comments that I think constitute "insulting and/or belittling other editors": "Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully" and " Do you really believe that editor retention is a priority for the likes of Sandstein?" Today, he has called an editor "filth". Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use this talk page to settle disagreements among other editors.  Sandstein  22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I just cannot help but notice that this seems to be in response to your recent content dispute about Oxford commas. Is this really in the best interests of the encyclopedia? Chillum 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • They are totally unrelated, but thanks for the bad-faith! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe you could clarify who is allowed to report to AE, but I assume it would not include anyone who has ever had a disagreement with EC, which would preclude quite a few people, don't you think? I think calling another editor "filth" is an insult that violates EC's sanctions, and I see absolutely no reason why it's inappropriate to report it just because I found a few oxford commas that don't belong in an article that he helped write. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    They are clearly not "totally unrelated" at all. Why have you posted this complaint on Sandstein's talk page anyway, instead of at the proper venue? Are you hoping to slide it through without any oversight? Eric Corbett 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the proper protocol is, but since he dealt with you yesterday I assumed he might be a good person to show this to today. Now will you answer my question? If we are currently in a content dispute, what exactly do we disagree about? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Haven't I made it clear enough to you that I have no further interest in articles about female subjects, including Enid Blyton? Do what you will with it, I couldn't care less. Eric Corbett 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Above you implied that we were in a content dispute: Chillum: "this seems to be in response to your recent content dispute about Oxford commas"; my response: "They are totally unrelated"; your response: "They are clearly not 'totally unrelated' at all". I'm going to disengage from this now, as I see that you don't want to resolve anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver, if you think that there is a case for arbitration enforcement, please make a request at WP:AE, where multiple admins will look at it and where there is a bit more of a structured venue in which to process such requests.  Sandstein  22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandstein. I've emailed the diffs to ArbCom. Do you think that's enough, or should I also file at AE? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom will not normally act on incidents which are claimed to require arbitration enforcement, that is the job of WP:AE. If you think that this is actionable, WP:AE is the venue in which to make any request.  Sandstein  22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think this is actionable? Because I'd rather not put any more effort into this if it's going to be futile or misguided. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to recuse from acting on any enforcement request that involves alleged personal attacks on myself. I'm not sure about these anyway - I don't know what "one-off" is supposed to mean in this context, and the comment about editor retention is criticism, not an insult. The "filth" comment can be seen as an insult, but I don't claim to be able to predict how others will see this.  Sandstein  22:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've reported the "filth" comment but omitted the rest. I'm sure there is probably something malformed in the report, so could you please take a look and let me know if I've forgotten anything or messed anything up? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my recent harsh criticism of your attitude and actions at AE, I'm going to thank you for this recusal. Let me say that I don't doubt your good faith, but I still have deep reservations about your overall judgment and suitability for being an admin, but that would be an issue for another round. However, I find the amount of sour grapes and kicking the man while on the ground in this sad affair disgusting, to put it mildly. I think I'm going to fuck off your talk page for a while now. No such user (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not use this talk page to settle disagreements among other editors.  Sandstein  14:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Calling another editor "filth" isn't exactly EC down on the ground being kicked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Put your reading glasses on. He called "it" filth, not another editor. Unless you consider another editor as an "it". What is malformed is the improper recognition of the pronoun "it". Buster Seven Talk 01:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Moments later EC edited his comment to read: "Seconded, they are indeed 'filth'." Rationalobserver (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Revdelete needed

Possible, but not needed.  Sandstein  15:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sandstein: one regrettable result of your block of Eric Corbett was that OrangesRyellow made a personal attack on Cassianto here on your user talk page. Since the former has not edited since and the best time for them to strike it out as based on a misunderstanding has thus passed, could I ask you to please do the decent thing and revdelete it? I don't believe it would be proper for me or another admin to do so, and hatting is insufficient for something so hurtful. I pinged you at AN/I suggesting this as a step towards reducing the current ill feeling, but being me, I messed up the ping template. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I had offered to withdraw my comment, but Cassianto is refusing to re-word his comment in a non double-meaning way. [12]OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I've seen so many personal attacks in the last few days that it would seem slightly pointless to revdelete any particular one of them. Blocking the editors who make them would be a better idea, but pointless because civility blocks don't tend to stick.  Sandstein  14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's day three now and still you are seen to support the filthy comments made by the editor above. I suggest that when this is over you reconsider your position as an administrator as you are clearly incompetent at being one. CassiantoTalk 12:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not "supporting" any of the various personal attacks that have been made here and elsewhere, including by you, and would instead appreciate it if people found another forum to vent their personal issues than my talk page.  Sandstein  14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Then you should be desysoped. You are an utter disgrace. CassiantoTalk 14:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "I'm not "supporting" any of the various personal attacks that have been made here and elsewhere": As a mark of your comment here, I think it would probably be best if you took on board the advice given, revdelete the comment and archive the entire thread. Not revdeleting does not send out a terribly good message, I'm afraid: it makes it look like you tacitly agree wth it, which I am sure is not the case, even if that is the impression given. What is the harm in not revdeleting? It will ensure the bubbling pot of dramah continues to fester in several locations, which isn't the best course of action for any administrator to encourage. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no wish to be instrumentalized - or instrumentalized any further - in this opaque feud among what seem to be entire clans of editors mistaking this encyclopedia for a battleground in which to hurl insults at each other. I'm also not going to take seriously a request for revision deletion of an insult insistently demanded by an editor who seems to be unable to leave any comment without a derogatory comment of their own. I'm archiving this thread and intend to respond only to any actionable arbitration enforcement requests that may come up.  Sandstein  15:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Am I topic banned?

HJ Mitchell had left this message on my talk page. Is that the way it is enforced? Am I topic banned now? I want to clarify, AE was not a retaliation and I would have used it before if I knew it existed. At most, it was a mistake by a newbie. I am looking forward to your advice. Ashtul (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani's edit on Kiryat Netafim changed a sentence which was there since the page inception when NO sources were given. To say it is WP:OR is a joke. Ashtul (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're topic banned, and you'd need to ask HJ Mitchell for any needed clarification. You can appeal the topic ban per the directions he gave you if you disagree with it.  Sandstein  14:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thanks. Ashtul (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

An editor is attempting a block review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Block on Cwobeel. I do not know if AN is the proper place, but I posted the evidence and corrected a false claim made by the OP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have commented there. In my opinion the right way to challenge the block is with an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, which usually is initiated by the person blocked. In the AN post I fixed the spelling of Cwobeel. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Cwobeel made a block request without the template as he himself acknowledged and used prior, but this malformed request contains false claims. Since you've seen that his first act was to restore the entirely unsourced page and repeatedly dismiss Kww up until the block - I don't think I need to explain in detail here. Though I clarified it to Lugnuts, to help provide perspective. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Cla68

Cla68 appeared to lay low in the last week of GamerGate to avoid the same fate as TDA. As of today, though, he came back and started in with MONGO again. You were the last person to warn him and was wondering if this appears to be an extension of what you warned against or a completely new issue. Thanks. --DHeyward (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you have diffs?  Sandstein  05:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You closed an AE complaint brought by Cla68 [13] as frivolous (you were correct). A week later here Cla68 is back to trolling MONGO over it [14], [15]. And MONGO's reply [16]. --DHeyward (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That seems rather ... unhelpful. But it's not what I warned Cla68 against because it's not an AE request.  Sandstein  10:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/January&oldid=1138980347"