Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 2 August 2013

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: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Block review

Your comments are welcome at User talk:TheShadowCrow#Topic ban violation. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I've replied there.  Sandstein  19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		My god, Sandstein, the amount of meticulous work in dredging up all the strands of TheShadowCrow's topic ban is impressive. Not to mention the succeeding analysis of whether he did or didn't violate the ban. Kudos.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, by the way, the appeals discussion should take place at AE, not on the appellant's talk page. I recommend moving it to AE:  Sandstein  06:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In re: CANYON.MID close

Hi, I saw your close and I thought it was a little snippy. "I know I've read about this" wasn't an argument, it was a simple statement that I recalled reading about it and was going to look for the source material. I found some trivial coverage in PC Mag PC User's Troubleshooting Guide O'Reilly Win98 other weird stuff from the 90s etc, I'm not necessarily interested in going to DRV with these mentions unless I can find something more substantive, but I did want to note that I thought your closing note was a bit bitey. You might not recognize my name these days, but I have been a contributor for a very long time and I know my way around a few WP: acronym-shortcuts. Andrevan@ 11:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't meant to offend you. Though, you know, it's always more advisable to post the actual references.  Sandstein  15:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Selli Engler

On 28 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Selli Engler, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Selli Engler, a pioneer of the lesbian movement in 1920s Germany, later wrote a play titled "Heil Hitler"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Selli Engler. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Grant Cardone

Hey, Sandstein, I'm embroiled in a discussion about adding material to this article that identifies Cardone as a Scientologist. My only question to you is how WP:ARBSCI fits into this discussion. If you take a look at the discussion and at my comments here, you'll see that I can't act administratively. But I don't want to ignore what may be an important factor in the discussion, the sanctions. I've never imposed Scientology-related sanctions, but I can see from the log that you have. I'd appreciate your thoughts when you have a moment. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:ARBSCI#1 June 2012 amendment, anything related to Scientology is automatically subject to discretionary sanctions. This includes the dispute about whether text relating to Grant Cardone's alleged Scientology connection should be added or not. This doesn't mean that any particular additional restrictions apply. Rather, per WP:AC/DS it means that an uninvolved administrator may, after issuing a warning per {{uw-sanctions}}, respond to any misconduct (such as WP:BLP violations or edit-warring) by imposing any sanction they consider appropriate, such as blocks or topic bans. Is that what you meant?  Sandstein  15:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the issue some more, I've warned another editor here. The warning about reverts applies to all involved, of course.  Sandstein  15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I need to ponder some more about this before getting back into the discussion at the Cardone talk page. I may rethink some of my earlier comments agreeing to include certain material, specifically the identification of Cardone as a Scientologist and the rather peripheral material about his company promoting Scientology. BTW, my involved view of Laval is they are very disruptive. Sewell concerns me as well for the reasons expressed by Kevin Gorman. He "attacks" Cardone in March 2012. He stops editing for well over a year and then comes back to join the fray at the Cardone article once the same material is resurrected. Thimbleweed, at least on the surface, is behaving more reasonably, despite his professed involvement in Scientology topics ("This account is a legal sockpuppet for editing articles related to Scientology"). The main reason I say all this is although I may be precluded from acting administratively here, I may still express my opinions to uninvolved admins who, of course, can make their own independent judgments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not with any violations of BLP -- none of the sources included violate BLP. For heavens sakes, some of them are actual interviews with the subject who has freely talked about being a Scientologist, while the Village Voice sources include verifiable evidence that Cardone did actually write the email in question. For Bbb23 or you to threaten me with a potential block is highly inappropriate and out of line, considering that Bbb23 began this "edit war" by wholesale removal of verifiable facts without any discussion. Instead of singling me out & backing the word of another admin, I strongly suggest you don't take sides. Again, if anyone should be subject to the threat of a block, it's Bbb23 for doing what he did without discussion and falsely claiming legitimate sources as being in violation of BLP. Laval (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that you single me out, and given the behavior of Bbb23 & Gorman, you choose only to warn me & list my username in the log of warnings? This is wildly inappropriate -- Bbb23 & Kevin Gorman reverted edits without so much a hint of discussion or attempt to compromise or reach consensus, and I'm the one who gets threatened with blocks/bans & listed in the warning log? If you're trying to drive editors away from WP, this is a great way of doing that. I've shared this with Alex to get his opinion on this matter. Laval (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors can legitimately disagree about whether something violates WP:BLP or not. Evaluating sources requires editorial judgment, and opinions may differ. This is likely such a legitimate disagreement. I am not expressing an opinion at this time whether the material at issue violates the BLP policy. But considering that the BLP policy by its intent and wording incorporates the precautionary principle (that is, when in doubt, assume that questionable material should be omitted), it is in my view sanctionable misconduct to engage in edit-warring to add (much more so than to remove) material to an article about which there are good-faith, non-frivolous BLP concerns that have not yet been resolved through consensus. You should heed this warning which I give you in my capacity as an administrator who is not involved in this dispute.  Sandstein  12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Log_of_warnings_about_discretionary_sanctions - if Bbb23 & Gorman are not likewise added to this, my name should be removed. Especially considering that Gorman even stalked me to Michael Doven (where he continued to revert me, despite the inclusion of sources -- I ended up adding even more sources and he has again removed sourced material without discussion). So there is clearly something wrong in singling me out. Laval (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The warnings log is not a sanction, but only a practical convenience for tracking who has been warned as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings. If you believe that administrative action is required with respect to others, you can file a request to that effect at WP:AE, where you will be expected to supply appropriate evidence in the form of diffs.  Sandstein  13:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Game of Thrones ratings

Template:Game of Thrones ratings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WAIT

I did it again before I got your warning! Don't block! Anyways, is it not for involved editors only? TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)