Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rationalobserver (talk | contribs) at 22:04, 27 January 2015 (→EC violating his ArbCom sanctions: indent). 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.

• 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.

Happy New Year!

Dear Sandstein,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

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 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 18:44, 26 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. Minor note - White Palace was not a co-win according to Hollywood Reporter. 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)

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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel

FYI, about Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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". 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)

Link

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)

Discussions related to the block of Eric Corbett

Good block

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)

• What a poor block. Tell me, how long have you been waiting with fingertips poised on that one? Cassianto 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• What makes you think I would be?  Sandstein  19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• A knee-jerk block such as yours speaks volumes. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect motives. Cassianto 19:35, 25 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. 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 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, 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 a unique noticeboard area?

Eric Corbett: the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.

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)

• Considering that I tried - twice - to just get his comments removed per Scope of topic bans, but had to go to AE to get action, I think a 48-hour block was very kind. Short of ignoring the breach completely, the only kinder block would have been 24 hours. Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 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)

• Please see the recent ds alert regarding editing on the GGTF project. This ds alert regarding discretionary standards appears to apply only to behavior on the GGTF project pages. Is this right? EChastain (talk) 22:10, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.  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

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. Cassianto 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)

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)

ANI mention

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

Note

An editor is attempting a block review at Misplaced Pages: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)

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/search/?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/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Cwobeel. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

EC violating his ArbCom sanctions

According to Misplaced Pages: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)

• Do you have nothing better to do Rationalobserver? Cassianto 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• Are you really saying that all editors who have ever been in a conflict, or are currently in a content dispute, with you are not allowed to report your violations of sanctions? Really? Also, is it really a content dispute? You have not even taken a position as to whether you agree or disagree with me that it's not okay to have some serial commas here and there but not everywhere. So, if we are in a content dispute together, what exactly do we disagree on? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• You called OrangesRYellow "filth", which is an insult that violates your ArbCom sanctions. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  Did I? What about answering my question though? Are you hoping that Sandstein will simply block me again? Eric Corbett 21:35, 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)