User talk:Sandstein - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 5 July 2014 (→Sean Hoyland's ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:33, 5 July 2014 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→Sean Hoyland's ban)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Start a new talk topic

Thanks...

Thanks Sandstein. To clear things out about my TBAN. Would you give me a right to edit some articles who could have TBAN material in it if I ask you for an exemption before I edit them? Jaqeli 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli, that's an unbelievable suggestion. You need to NOT think about any of the articles that are part of your TBAN - even suggesting that you want to edit them shows that you don't get it. If you ask to edit a TBAN-related article, you can be blocked for violating your TBAN. the panda ₯’ 11:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, DangerousPanda, not just for asking, but, Jaqeli, you should work on the reasons that led to the ban before asking for exemptions. Sandstein 11:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I mean the articles which have marginal connections to my TBAN, e.g. Pharnavaz I of Iberia. Also to clear things out, I can appeal my TBAN directly to you and also to the enforcement page, right? Jaqeli 12:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli, I would NOT recommend editing Pharnavaz I at all, since that is what got you blocked.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli: Yes. Sandstein 14:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Legend of Korra Book 3

why revert my thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGnerd (talk • contribs)

You refer to this? I undid the addition because it did not cite any reliable sources. Please see WP:V for more information about citing sources and why it is important. Sandstein 14:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement?

You have left me a note on my talk page, with the heading "Arbitration enforcement editing restriction (Arab-Israeli conflict) amended", stating that "In response to opinions by other administrators at WP:AE, the duration of the restriction banning you from commenting about enforcement restrictions by others is set to three months". :I was not aware that any such ban had been imposed on me. Please inform me when it was imposed, by whom, and for what offence; this is the first notification I have received. RolandR (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to leave the message for another user but opened the wrong talk page. Please disregard the message. Sandstein 11:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why the concerns raised by three separate editors were ignored regarding your sanctions against user:Sean.hoyland. Dlv999 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read these concerns, but they are not on point. I blocked Sean.hoyland because they accused another editor of sockpuppetry and did not provide evidence after being asked to, but reiterated the allegations. In particular, Sean.hoyland did not refer to any statement by a checkuser when making the allegations I blocked them for. As an experienced editor, Sean.hoyland should know that if one must accuse another editor of misconduct, this must be done in the appropriate forum (which would have been WP:SPI in this case) and it must also be done with actionable evidence. See, in general, WP:ASPERSIONS. Sandstein 13:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As his first edits coming back from the block you imposed on User:Sean.hoyland for accusing people of being socks without evidence, he made the following edits ,, again accusing me of being a sock, without any evidence, and begging me to go to an admin to take action against him. (I will mention that based on a similar baseless report, and SPI was just conducted and the CU found it to be baseless ) The filer of that fishing expedition report was blocked for a week . Seems like similar action is needed here. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not quite correct. My very first edit after my block was this note to Bbb23 at the edit warring noticeboard, which I suggest you read, where I also referred to you as a sockpuppet. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See this, as well: "just to make it crystal clear, I have just done exactly the same thing there that recently resulted in my being blocked for 48 hours by Sandstein for describing a sockpuppet as a sockpuppet. I made it as my very first post-block edit. You are welcome to apply another block. I don't mind" . Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

- And just to make it crystal-clear; you have to block me too (my first in my 9 years here). And most other content creators in the I/P area. I find it outrageous that we cannot describe those loud disruptive quacking feathery creatures for what they are; WP:Ducks. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

People, the rules are quite clear. If you think that another editor is a sockpuppet, you must make this accusation in the proper forum, WP:SPI, and with actionable evidence. All other accusations of sockpuppetry aimed at another editor are personal attacks, and are dealt with accordingly. However, if further sanctions are needed to prevent such conduct, I would like to discuss the form of such sanctions of other admins first. Therefore, Kipa Aduma, Esq., if you think that this requires admin action, please ask for it at WP:AE. Sandstein 08:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi. Is this edit a revert or not? I'm asking because, despite the fact that I'm removing POV accusations only supported by a clear POV unreliable source, those paragraphs have been a long time there, therefore I could interpret that my first edit wasn't a revert. But maybe I'm wrong. I want to know if I can revert this within a 24 hours period without breaking 1RR. Thanks a lot!--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't give you authoritative advice about this. Another administrator enforcing 1RR might see the matter differently from me. You'll have to use your own best judgment. Sandstein 08:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at ARE

Are you the admin who is overseeing my request for enforcement at ARE? If so, do I respond to your comment there or here? If there, where there? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is overseeing the request, as such, but any admin may comment or act on it. You should reply in the request section at WP:AE, and/or you should amend the request as necessary to perhaps make it actionable. Sandstein 05:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hectic day for me today. Granddaughter with me. Car broke down in 100+ degree heat. Home now and tried making my request more clear. Does that help? ... Going to rest now. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, up until about a month or month-and-a-half ago, his tactic with me was personal attacks. He has mostly stopped that, as far as I can tell. Then, while I was on vacation (and he knew I was on vacation), he hijacked an article I'd developed because he doesn't like the term "assault weapons ban" (meeting WP:NC as a common term in a preponderance of WP:V sources here in the U.S.) appearing as a "See also" on a related page. I could've "won" that dispute if I'd pushed my advantage in an edit war, but I took the high road (which all the advice tells us we're supposed to do) and started a discussion - and the reward I got for doing it right is that the article is now titled "Assault weapons legislation," which is absolutely NOT WP:UCN. You can get the details about that fiasco here if you're interested.

I hope that background helps a little, but either way... Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

About S.H.

This belongs in the ongoing AE discussion, or nowhere. Sandstein 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this a violation of the topic ban you imposed against him? I'm just asking. Cheers.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC) By asking you are violating the WP:SOCK policy. AmirSurfLera, you are a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Special:Contributions/Shamir1, at first via Special:Contributions/Precision123 which you stopped using on 2014-05-26. Now it's via your current account after you switched over from one to the other a few days later on 2014-05-29, as indicated by the change in slope of the graph of cumulative edits. You know this is true. There is nothing at all stopping you from saying so and following the clean start track. Please read what I wrote here and do the right thing. I would like to tell you how I identified you but I can't because it relies on your many tells and you would use that information to avoid detection. Sandstein takes the view that Misplaced Pages operates as a court where there is a presumption of innocence. So do you. I don't because it doesn't work. SPI and admins can't stop an editor like you from editing because bypassing the constraints that are available is trivial. And Misplaced Pages isn't a court. It's a private entity, more like a bar where the staff should use their experience and discretion to expel trouble makers with minimum disruption to the innocent good people. As for the issue at hand, your desperation to have me blocked is showing. Don't worry about that. I can help you with that by continuing to say things that are true. Even if my commenting at the edit warring noticeboard were a violation of a restriction, and it isn't, there's no chance whatsoever that I will comply with any warning or restrictions that result from an AE report submitted by a sockpuppet because it is not in the interests of the project to do so. That is the case for the AE report that you submitted that resulted in the restrictions Sandstein imposed and it will be the case for the outcome of the current case at AE submitted by another account where the probability of the editor not being a sock is negligible, as should be obvious to anyone familiar with the topic area. If that results in my account being blocked that is just tough shit. It's nothing personal but I should always do what I think is in the best interests of the project and take the consequences. Admins should do the same. If there is a mismatch, c'est la vie. If the outcome results in ARBPIA becoming even worse than it is now (which I doubt because it can't really get any worse), that will provide useful information about what not to do in future and how to make the topic area better. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC) In light of Sean's explicit remark that he has no intention of complying with warnings and restrictions imposed by administrators, the fact that he violated a topic ban and he keeps accusing me of sockpuppetry without opening an SPI to prove it so (although there are at least two SPIs which found me innocent), I request a blockade against this user. I'm not a sockpuppet and I won't tolerate any other baseless accusation against me by a POV user who breaks wikipedia's rules with impunity.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Very good. Now, I hate to be a pedant but I haven't said that I have "no intention of complying with warnings and restrictions imposed by administrators", although any editor can of course do that and unfortunately there is no way to stop them. What I actually said was "there's no chance whatsoever that I will comply with any warning or restrictions that result from an AE report submitted by a sockpuppet because it is not in the interests of the project to do so". The difference is important to me, but perhaps not to others. I can live with the consequences of that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC) First of all, stop calling me "sockpuppet". Second, your topic ban was imposed by Sandstein, not me. Third, you are compelled to obey the topic ban, whether you like it or not. Nobody is asking you to participate in Misplaced Pages. If you don't like the rules of this encyclopedia, I suggest you to get a job or learn how to play tennis. Because clearly this is not the place for an arrogant biased editor like you. Now I'll stop wasting my time with you. I only hope that, after reading this conversation, Sandstein will block you for a while, as you deserve. Have a nice day.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC) That's charming. Not that it matters but you couldn't be more wrong. You will find that is the case for many educated professionals you probably think are unemployed activists who volunteer their time here because they are able to do so. In the future you may come to see where you have gone wrong and do the right thing. I hope so. Sean.hoyland - talk

This belongs in the ongoing AE discussion, or nowhere. Sandstein 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is this a violation of the topic ban you imposed against him? I'm just asking. Cheers.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

By asking you are violating the WP:SOCK policy. AmirSurfLera, you are a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Special:Contributions/Shamir1, at first via Special:Contributions/Precision123 which you stopped using on 2014-05-26. Now it's via your current account after you switched over from one to the other a few days later on 2014-05-29, as indicated by the change in slope of the graph of cumulative edits. You know this is true. There is nothing at all stopping you from saying so and following the clean start track. Please read what I wrote here and do the right thing. I would like to tell you how I identified you but I can't because it relies on your many tells and you would use that information to avoid detection. Sandstein takes the view that Misplaced Pages operates as a court where there is a presumption of innocence. So do you. I don't because it doesn't work. SPI and admins can't stop an editor like you from editing because bypassing the constraints that are available is trivial. And Misplaced Pages isn't a court. It's a private entity, more like a bar where the staff should use their experience and discretion to expel trouble makers with minimum disruption to the innocent good people. As for the issue at hand, your desperation to have me blocked is showing. Don't worry about that. I can help you with that by continuing to say things that are true. Even if my commenting at the edit warring noticeboard were a violation of a restriction, and it isn't, there's no chance whatsoever that I will comply with any warning or restrictions that result from an AE report submitted by a sockpuppet because it is not in the interests of the project to do so. That is the case for the AE report that you submitted that resulted in the restrictions Sandstein imposed and it will be the case for the outcome of the current case at AE submitted by another account where the probability of the editor not being a sock is negligible, as should be obvious to anyone familiar with the topic area. If that results in my account being blocked that is just tough shit. It's nothing personal but I should always do what I think is in the best interests of the project and take the consequences. Admins should do the same. If there is a mismatch, c'est la vie. If the outcome results in ARBPIA becoming even worse than it is now (which I doubt because it can't really get any worse), that will provide useful information about what not to do in future and how to make the topic area better. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In light of Sean's explicit remark that he has no intention of complying with warnings and restrictions imposed by administrators, the fact that he violated a topic ban and he keeps accusing me of sockpuppetry without opening an SPI to prove it so (although there are at least two SPIs which found me innocent), I request a blockade against this user. I'm not a sockpuppet and I won't tolerate any other baseless accusation against me by a POV user who breaks wikipedia's rules with impunity.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Now, I hate to be a pedant but I haven't said that I have "no intention of complying with warnings and restrictions imposed by administrators", although any editor can of course do that and unfortunately there is no way to stop them. What I actually said was "there's no chance whatsoever that I will comply with any warning or restrictions that result from an AE report submitted by a sockpuppet because it is not in the interests of the project to do so". The difference is important to me, but perhaps not to others. I can live with the consequences of that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, stop calling me "sockpuppet". Second, your topic ban was imposed by Sandstein, not me. Third, you are compelled to obey the topic ban, whether you like it or not. Nobody is asking you to participate in Misplaced Pages. If you don't like the rules of this encyclopedia, I suggest you to get a job or learn how to play tennis. Because clearly this is not the place for an arrogant biased editor like you. Now I'll stop wasting my time with you. I only hope that, after reading this conversation, Sandstein will block you for a while, as you deserve. Have a nice day.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's charming. Not that it matters but you couldn't be more wrong. You will find that is the case for many educated professionals you probably think are unemployed activists who volunteer their time here because they are able to do so. In the future you may come to see where you have gone wrong and do the right thing. I hope so. Sean.hoyland - talk

TBAN appeal

Hi Sandstein, as you're an admin who TBAN'ed me I think it's better to address and ask directly you with an appeal for my TBAN to be lifted from me.

I was TBAN'ed back in January 2014 and during this period of time till today I was productively editing Wiki. I've much contributed to many articles, made 2 articles a GA article, cleaned many articles from mistakes, created new articles and etc. The thing is I could continue editing even with this TBAN but the major thing is that the current TBAN what is about Armeno-Georgain connection it has a lot of marginal connections in many other neutral and non-controversial Georgian-related articles and that is seriously making me trouble to edit any of those. Please note that during this time from January till today I received from you 2 blocks. One from Mithridates of Armenia where I accidentally and automatically added a new category and second from Pharnavaz I of Iberia because of its marginal connection to my TBAN. What I mean is that I haven't edited those 2 articles in purpose back then to avoid my TBAN or violate it. Not at all. I value Misplaced Pages and having had many mistakes in the past I don't make such mistakes anymore. Now as for the TBAN itself, I do recognize that I was rude in some way and was non-compromising with the Armenian users and my statement back then which led me to TBAN was wrong and maybe offensive to some. I understand it and I am ready to cooperate with good faith with Armenian users from now on if the second chance is given by you. I give you my word that all those controversial articles concerning Armeno-Georgian connections I will edit constructively, will not edit war and will discuss it in a calm and respectable manner with them if any problems would arise. If or when no consensus would be reached I will directly ask for an admin involvement or 3rd party opinions to settle such issues down and you can be sure that I won't mess everything around and I will keep my word. I will directly inform you when those issues arise and you'll see I am following my promise given to you. I recognize my past mistakes and behaviour and want to ask you to give me a second chance and lift and cancel this TBAN from me. Hope you'll understand me. Thank you, Jaqeli 14:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, your topic ban is lifted. Please make sure to refrain from confrontational or disruptive editing in this topic area, such as edit-warring or assuming bad faith on the part of others. Sandstein 19:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland's ban

Sandstein, after I blocked AmirSurfLera (talk · contribs · count) per a report at WP:AN3, I noticed Sean's ban in the log. Sean brought the report to AN3. Literally, the ban doesn't appear to prevent him from bringing a report, although it gets a bit odd when he comments on his own report, but I'm concerned that (a) he may have violated his ban and (b) if so, whether my action blocking AmirSurfLera is tainted because of it. I'd like to hear your thoughts. In the interm I'll proceed as if nothing has changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think that your block is problematic, and Sean.hoyland's restriction does not prohibit them from making requests of their own. But I'd appreciate your or other admins' comments on Sean.hoyland's conduct in the related thread at WP:AE. Sandstein 19:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler action deferred

Hello Sandstein. Please see my recent edit of the suspended report on Plot Spoiler. I'm notifying you since you joined in the admin discussion. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)