User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/November

User:LibiBamizrach

Hi Sandstein, I looked over the editor contributions, and I believe the perma ban you imposed on the editor is unfair.

The first point you made to justify the ban was that the user is abusing multiple accounts, but in my understanding there's no prove the user was. Besides the user clarified their knowledge of the prior events at their talk page. May I please ask you, if you read their clarification? Shouldn't a good faith to be assumed towards the editor?

The second point you made "POV-pushing", and as an example you provided this difference, but if you are to look at this difference you will see that User:LibiBamizrach did not insert the information into the article, but simply reverted IP, and BTW added the template "fact" to the statement.

May I please ask you to reconsider the ban you posted on the editor. I will work with them and try to improve their understanding of the requirement that only well sourced information should be introduced to the articles. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to reconsider my block as long as LibiBamizrach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) themselves do not request to be unblocked. In addition, the arguments provided by LibiBamizrach are unconvincing. In my opinion, there is sufficient circumstancial evidence for a sockpuppet block, and with respect to POV-pushing, intentionally inserting unsourced information is not less problematic because someone else previously removed the same information. See WP:BURDEN.  Sandstein  15:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The block was perfectly warranted. His comments about "clean start" when the only thing this account has been used for is to push a pov, only gives evidence that its not really a "clean start", but an old user with a new account that he has falsely presented as a "clean start" so he can continue with the same problematic behaviour without the "history" of the old account, so he can avoid being sanctioned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AN

Was I allowed to comment at Triton Rocker's appeal? or is that page restricted to administrators? GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody may comment at WP:AN.  Sandstein  12:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

Just to inform you that following this discussion and an indication from Mick that he's going to try to work in a way that's going to allow him to operate in Wikipedia, I've unblocked him. He an I have not exactly got on in the past, so I'm quite surprised at having done this. If it doesn't work out, then I'll look a fool (and you can remind me of that without it being a personal attack) - if it does then we all win. I hope you can accept that.--Scott Mac 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good decision on Iblis

Likebox was probably our most knowledgable active physics editor and Iblis is arguably next. We risk having nobody left that we trust, at this rate. SBHarris 20:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I try not to base my admin decisions on the merits of anybody's content contributions, only whether or not they disrupt Wikipedia.  Sandstein  20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is, of course, a balance. You cannot have good decisions without some passionate argument. Would you like to have politics without some demonstrations, yelling, or disruption? You'd get North Korea. No good political system ever got anywhere without some revolution, and that includes ours. Human institutions based on power tend to preserve themselves and their power (again see North Korea) without regard to any other goals. If you want an actual good quality encyclopedia, rather than just a well-functioning Potemkin village that looks like it is writing one, you must be willing to pay some price in "disruption." That's a bad word, anyway, as it implies that anything that disrupts harmony, is to be stamped out and shunned, rather like the Amish do. But if you do that, you'll get what the Amish have: lots of harmony, but no progress. SBHarris 20:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the reasons, Sandstein's stance on Count Iblis's recent block as well as the collegial flexibility he showed on Mick MacNee's unblock by Scott MacDonald are to be commended. It is a very credible and respectable attitude. Well done. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement

Hi Sandstein, could you have a look at the WP:AE#Nableezy thread? EdJohnston and Looie496 have different views about how to proceed, and I'm somewhat uncertain. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@PhilKnight - I give you more credit than to think that you wouldn't know exactly what Sandstein would think about that AE thread. As such, I think it's pretty obvious here that you've WP:CANVASed. Topic banning nableezy over a technical 1RR violation?!? Really? Poor show. Poor poor show. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing seems to be beside the point here, since AE requests are not the subject of consensus-based discussion and so there ought to be no consensus to sway. Any admin can act on requests individually, no matter what others think.  Sandstein  14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh  Sandstein  - While WP:Consensus might not apply to AE, consensus among admins is obviously important at AE or else admins wouldn't go there to offer opinions. What's the point in offering an opinion if there isn't any obligation for an admin to try and respect the opinion of majority?

Anyway, I'm confident you can offer some seemingly reasoned retort to the point above, so let's just skip it, b/c I don't want to argue about how AE works. The right and decent for you and probably PK to do would be to recuse. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking an admin action so there's nothing to recuse from, but even if I did there would be no grounds for recusal.  Sandstein  16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Civility on WP:ANI

I was reading this thread and I noticed your parenthetical comment "but I seem to have been mistaken in believing that this might matter to you, so I'm sorry to bother you with such trivia". I wanted to let you know that this comes across as uncivil and to ask you to strike out that text. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the notice; I've struck that part.  Sandstein  14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, I believe you are aware about Gadget-ImageAnnotator that enables adding notes to the images on Commons. It is also implemented on German Wikipedia, but it is not implemented on English wikipedia, and I believe it should be. Could you please tell me where is the best place to propose it in order to gain the consensus for its implantation? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, WP:VP, proposals subsection? It seems to have been discussed multiple times there already, though.  Sandstein  16:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There's even a subpage, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Annotate.  Sandstein  16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding all those links!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

my page

am i not allowed to edit my own page with the actual facts? not the hearsay? please advise. i have back up for everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillmanipulator (talk • contribs) 19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "your" page on Wikipedia, see WP:OWN. Any content related to living persons must be verifiable by reliable sources, which must be cited in the material you add, see WP:BLP.  Sandstein  21:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

AN discussion

I have raised a matter which involves you on the WP:AN [1]--Scott Mac 03:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Subpage of WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

Hi Sandstein, I've created a subpage of WP:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement for discussion of the apparent deterioration in editing of the I-P dispute at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Obviously, you founded the wikiproject so I hope this is ok with you, and in addition your comments would be most welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've no objection (not that any objection by me would particularly matter), but I'm not currently active in AE. Therefore I do not currently anticipate contributing to that discussion. From a look at AE there does seem to be another flareup, but I believe that the most efficient way of dealing with it may well be to simply indefinitely topic-ban the most disruptive veterans on both sides, possibly to be repeated on an annual basis as new recruits and socks pop up...  Sandstein  13:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kalajan

Hi there; are you sure about this? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not?  Sandstein  15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DidiWeidmann/Xtinadbest

The more I looked, the more inclined I became to think this is a good block. The accounts were created around the same time, and an overlap at an article like {{Malta-LocalCouncils}} is hard to explain. Xtinadbest has obviously got Maltese roots, but has always had a strong interest in things from Northern Europe. A child in the home is always a possibility, though.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. With which account does this overlap?  Sandstein  21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Xtinadbest, the original sockpuppeteer. I've asked DidiWeidmann if one of his daughters has a fascination with Eurovision. We could have just uncovered Xtinadbest's father. If that's the case, I would be happy enough to unblock on the condition that the daughter is disciplined and prevented from editing Wikipedia any more. I've been chasing Xtinadbest for 18 months now, and she is an incredibly irritating puppeteer.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exploring that option sounds like a good idea. But if this Xtinadbest has displayed some sophistication at socking (proxies, etc?), might it not be reasonable to ask also whether she had adult assistance? At any rate I agree that it would be up to DidiWeidmann to explain why his IP has been making these sorts of edits.  Sandstein  22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wookie block

He could use a quick hand.[2] Not sure what the protocol is but I wouldn't mind copy and pasting his responses over. The unblock template needs to go, though. I was going to mention it at AN but looks like you are on right now and familiar with the situation.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

He just removed the template so disregard that bit.Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD Albanian exonyms

I'm curious about the basis of your decision for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian exonyms. You said it is not a notability issue. Is it a sourcing issue or a WP:NOT issue or something else? There was a category-wide discussion of these articles a while back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms and there was no consensus to delete. It pains me to run around trying to follow individual AfD requests and figure out the basis for each. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The principal problems with the article were WP:DICDEF and WP:V. While WP:N was also mentioned, a comment saying only "Notable" is a weak argument per WP:JNN.  Sandstein  20:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If the problems were primarily WP:DICDEF, shouldn't they be addressed systematically for all exonym articles as was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms? If the WP:V is key, can you please restore the article to my userspace and I'll address that with sourcing, &c? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 20:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied the content to User:AjaxSmack/Albanian exonyms.  Sandstein  20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration. I'd still like your input on the larger issue of these type of articles if you have a strong opinion on them. Granted, the Albania article was really weak but I don't want to work on these exonym articles if they're just going to be deleted later for other reasons. I'm considering a renomination of the whole category at AfD for clarification. — AjaxSmack 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on the DICDEF issue, but tend to agree that such articles are not much more than a dictionary entries . Normally, each AfD is decided on its own merits, so even if a mass nomination fails, an individual nomination may well succeed, especially if the article is still unsourced at the end of the AfD. Such articles are practically a must-delete per WP:V.  Sandstein  20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Point well taken about necessity of sourcing. — AjaxSmack 21:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:LibiBamizrach

FYI: User:LibiBamizrach has left a message for you at User talk:LibiBamizrach#Indefinitely blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; answered.  Sandstein  23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why to redact?

May I please ask you to explain your edit? The info I provided is opened for everybody to see here anyway. Besides what is the point in renaming the user name, if the talk page of the old user is kept? Anybody could go here and see the new user name of the vanished user. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

At the point it was redacted the page was deleted; now I don't see any issues with the old text, the cat is well out of the bag. Also, I did the first redaction, not Sandstein. -- Avi (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Locking User Talk pages

When I flamed out in the early part of this year I remember you being very vociferous about insisting that I unlocked my talkpage and even going as far to to bully me with threats of de-sysopping by arbcom if I didn't immediately do what you demanded. What I see today is you acting to shut down discussion at ANI about Rlevse and doing nothing about the locking of their page. Please can you explain the difference in approach to me? Have your views changed or is there another explanation for what appears, on the face of it, to be one approach for your wikifriends and another for other users. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember the incident you refer to. Could you please point me to it? As regards locking the user talk page, I've expressed a preliminary opinion here, though I've not looked into the matter further.  Sandstein  06:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this it? HalfShadow 06:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is a different situation. Spartaz deleted his own talk page while Rlevse's talk page was not deleted, but only protected, and protected by somebody else, not Rlevse himself. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, this is a bit difficult to evaluate now because Rlevse's talk page is now deleted for unclear reasons, but it seems that in the earlier incident you, Spartaz, deleted and protected your own talk page and by doing so undid another admin's - my - admin action. That's wheel warring, and it's bad. No wheel warring seems to have happened in the present case. Though I agree it is not clear why Rlevse's talk page was protected in the first place, no admin - including you - has undone that action, so I see no need for an ArbCom escalation here. Does that answer your question?

And I am puzzled why you would accuse me of wikifavoritism and inaction, when in the instant case nobody requested unprotection of me; when Iridescent brought the matter up, I advised how to proceed. Really, has half of Wikipedia gone mad? Why is everybody acting in high drama mode?  Sandstein  06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the talk page, see also [3].  Sandstein  06:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it would have been OK as long as someone else locked my page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, in that case another admin would have abused their administrator permissions to wheel-war instead of you.  Sandstein  14:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Str8t arrow

Sandstein: Before we can act on this, please clarify: Are all these user accounts and IP contributions by you, or by other people at your behest? Sandstein 17:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply: they are all by me. I used different names in different browsers. I often couldn't remember what name I had previously selected so I frequently made up new names when I couldn't remember old ones. My houses is littered with computers. I am an economist.

The story behind behind most of my posts was that I as a voter in New Hampshire, was trying to figure out who the various candidates running for office were and what they stood for. In many cases, its is very difficult for voters like me to find out detailed information about candidates and their positions. The existing information on Wikipedia that I edited was skeletal and often irrelevant. I simply posted on Wikipedia what relevant information I discovered as I discovered them. All of my posts are accurate and properly documented, beyond the stand of most Wikipedia articles that I have perused.

Can you help me have all of my posts on Wikipedia deleted? I regret having become involved in Wikipedia and wish to have all of my posts deleted. I am a college professor who tried naively to add to Wikipedia's knowledge base, largely in small increments. In my spare time, I worked on a few obscure topics that werely poorly covered by Wikipedia. I stand by the quality of my posts.

Wikipedia in my experience is a communal effort to pull down the quality of serious contributions, not improve them. I don't want my posts over time to be transformed into propaganda, which is the way are heading. I do not want to have any further involvement in Wikipedia and I wish to take back by posts.

I don't care about blocks. I simply want out of Wikipedia and my posts deleted.

Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str8t arrow (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not technically possible to delete your account and all your contributions. Please note the warning message below the edit window: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If there are any individual pages that only you have contributed to, you can request their deletion by adding {{db-g7}} at the top.  Sandstein  14:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi, it has been long time since I last talking to you. I seems to have encounter a wiki editor by the name of Дунгане who is more into name calling than constructive discussion. Please have a look at Talk:Boxer Rebellion, and offer your opinion when you have time. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR response
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, admin, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page. Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article. User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [4]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China". in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)" Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world." In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu. Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus. Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities. Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer". Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic." Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox? I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me.Дунгане (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't see any steps in formal dispute resolution having been undertaken here. Please try that first. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: consideration of deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Peace

Hello Sandstein,

You put this page up for consideration of deletion with the following notation:

No third-party sources cited, no indication of meeting WP:BAND, apparent WP:COI in creation. Sandstein 06:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a conflict of interest as I started this page after discovering that a previously existing Artificial Peace page had been entirely deleted by a vandal a few years ago. I clicked on the link to restart it with the intention of adding links to secondary sources.

Since then I've cited several reliable sources and met the notability guidelines for music.

Artificial Peace:

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
2. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
3. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
4. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Please let me know if you have any specific questions for me. I hope you will remove the consideration of deletion for this page.

Thank you for your help.

I'll look at it again.  Sandstein  14:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"entirely deleted by a vandal"? Since when do vandals have the ability to delete articles on Wikipedia? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That was not a vandal, just a normal WP:PROD deletion.  Sandstein  14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page creator replies:

As far as satisfying requirements for notability,

• Artificial Peace was the first hardcore band from Bethesda, Maryland Maybe that doesn't seem like a bid deal to you, but that would be your personal judgment. It is a fact.
• Brian Baker, the bass player for Minor Threat who later went on to play with Government Issue, Dag Nasty, Junkyard, and Bad Religion, called Artificial Peace, "absolutely a great forgotten band of that time." Mr. Baker is an expert on the subject and the quote was published in a book.
• Members of Artificial Peace went on to form Marginal Man and join Government Issue.
• Pushead (Brian Schroeder) considered Artificial Peace worthy of his talents and time to create his highly stylized posters for the band. Pushead also created artwork for The Misfits and Metallica. Here's a link to see one of the posters Pushead made for Artificial Peace.
• In addition to Artificial Peace vinyl records released in the 1980s (and later reissued on CD), Dischord Records has just released the entire Artificial Peace 1981 sessions. Dischord, [one of the more famous independent labels (it says so on Wikipedia)] has demonstrated that the band has merit by releasing this music after 29 years.

Only one of the many above facts is needed to satisfy the requirements for notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. Please remove the consideration for deletion flag from this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.13.84 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please make these arguments on the deletion discussion page, not here, and the community will evaluate them.  Sandstein  19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page creator replies:

Thank you, I look forward to your decision.

Magotteers

Hi Sandstein, not sure if you contribute to this specific board, but since you have been involved in AA2 sanction, please see User:Magotteers reported. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that seeems to have been dealt with now.  Sandstein  14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mick MacNee

I thought you would find this of interest [5].  RGTraynor  18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the RfArb, This is relevant. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's looking like the RFArb is going to be declined. Are you prepared to turn the RFC link blue? Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I do not have a problem with MickMacNee, personally, or any experience with him. I was just trying to help others resolve a problematic situation on a noticeboard. RfCs are best left to the people who have experience interacting with the user. And I think that an RFC would not help here. The problems are quite evident, and MickMacNee has shown no indication that he understands or is prepared to address them.  Sandstein  22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic battleground

My talk page is not a forum for dispute resolution. Please go elsewhere for this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Sandstein. Does a comment like this one sound like an ethnic battleground mentality is at play here? If so, what sort of recourse should I look to? Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC) We normally speak of a battleground mentality if editors recast editorial disagreements in terms of nationalist conflicts over an extended period of time. A single edit is not usually indicative. If you think this problem is present here, you may consider using WP:CCN or WP:AE.  Sandstein  20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Such as it is, but a comment like "Your intent is obvious: you exist in Wikipedia to enforce Armenian agenda only, not to contribute to the encyclopedia" comes off as a personal attack as well, does it not?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC) The comments made by you on Sumgait pogrom talk page as well as on Quantum666's page are more of personal attack nature and incivility than this. PS: Sandstein, apologies for responding on your talk page. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrections to my bio on my Wiki page...

Hi Sandstein, Constance Demby here... I found this conversation on Wikipedia from April 2010 when I was attempting to correct and expand my wiki page. This is November and now I have a time slot to work on it and make it correct according to wiki standards

But now I cant find the page where the new bio was entered for review, and where there were several comments from you as to what could be allowed and what needed to be edited. Hopefully you can direct me to that page. Thanks Sandstein, much appreciated.

Here is the conversation from April 2010:

Incomprehensible content archived
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Sandstein... Constance Demby here... and it's been some time since we had a discussion... We last talked in Dec 09, and then I got really busy with career concerns. I had sent new information for my page, and there were items that needed to be edited, changed, etc, and I finally now have time to devote to my Wiki page and make it the way it's supposed to be! which honestly, I did not understand nor was I aware of the Wiki rules when I first started posting to my page ... and is why all that trouble and bad reviews on the talk page occured. no one had told me how Wikipedia works... Now I know, and now I have a new producer who want to promote me, and I need to fix my page the way it should be according to Wiki standards and guidelines. But now I cant find the page where the new bio was entered, and where there were several comments from you so to sum up... I need to get my wiki page edited and up to standard, and I would appreciate your counsel and direction as to where I find the page where I entered all my info in Dec of 2009... thanks so much for your help and guidance, much appreciated! and I just found this: when I tried to go to <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constance_Demby&diff=prev&oldid=329772242 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constance_Demby&diff=prev&oldid=329772242> > thanks for you help Sandstein, much appreciated Constance66.215.99.9 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.215.99.9> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.215.99.9&action=edit&redlink=1> ) 05:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC) hi again and this is the page that I was looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constance_Demby&diff=next&oldid=329772242 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constance_Demby&diff=next&oldid=329772242 it just came up. now,I need to understand the guidelines on the two sides of the page and how to re-edit and re-submit the material. thanks .... Constance Demby66.215.99.9 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.215.99.9> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.215.99.9&action=edit&redlink=1> ) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (ec) link you mention above seems to work fine from here, I would suggest that the best way forward would be to suggest changes to the talk page and invite input from other editors, please review WP:COI <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI> and WP:BIOSELF <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIOSELF> . Kind Regards, Unomi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unomi> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unomi> ) 06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents> regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Good news you have something to block me for again Factomancer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Factomancer> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Factomancer> ) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) [edit <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/April&action=edit&section=62> ] Constancemary (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Constance Demby

Hello. I'm sorry, but it is not clear from the above what exactly you want of me. Could you please be clearer and provide the relevant links in standard Wikipedia form? Thanks,  Sandstein  22:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Images on Lesbia article

I took those from the Russian language article, which is a Featured article. Surely, if it's featured, the images are considered relevant? Although the hummingbird one might be just a different matter of taste for the Russian Wikipedia, what about the other two?--occono (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the Russian Wikipedia may have other standards, or the images may have been added after the featuring. Please see WP:IG: "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted."  Sandstein  07:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I haven't the faintest idea about the topic. But there's a "Please translate this" template on the page. Maybe it needs rewriting, because it gives the impression all the content on a foreign feature article is valuable.--occono (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Albanian exonyms redux

Earlier, I corresponded with you about the recently deleted Albanian exonyms article and you restored it to my userspace. Since then, I have done a little work on it and was wondering 1) if the difference between the deleted version and the current version is significant enough in your estimation to warrant restoration and 2) if so, what the process for restoring the article is. WP:DELREV does not appear to be the correct way since the deletion process was totally on the up-and-up. Just move it myself per WP:BOLD? Thanks for your help. — AjaxSmack 04:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article now has encyclopedic content, and as far as I'm concerned you can just move it back to article space.  Sandstein  07:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. — AjaxSmack 00:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Proper English and supervision

Heyo Sandstein,
I've been noted that a suggestion of mine was "bad English" and when I suggested to consult an external grammar expert was attacked with "that English is not your first language is painfully apparent in all of your edits". I'd appreciate your note if the following phrasing is of clear low quality:

• "[x is a] critic of Israel and Jewish Settlers, to whom he attributes...[Palestinian hardships]".

The discussion is on the talkpage of Gideon Levy and I am concerned with the lack of collaboration on the part of my discussion partner here (scroll up for "Suggested version").
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, English isn't my first language either. But the only error I can see in that phrase is that "settlers" should not have been capitalized, since it does not seem to be a proper name.  Sandstein  22:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested Ravpapa to remove his offensive comment, while noting my concerns were not yet addressed and his response was to suggest that I find nothing wrong with the current lead and that I resigned from discussion. I'm not sure on how to proceed here, esp. after I already asked him (see point 5) to avoid personally directed commentaries. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:3O? In personalized disputes fresh eyes are always helpful. (Unfortunately I myself have no interest in the topic.)  Sandstein  21:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:3O sounds like a good idea as far as the content goes. Would you mind noting him to be more collaborative and avoiding personal attacks? The "painfully apparent in all of your edits" comment is uncalled for and he practically ignored my reply to his points of concerns, suggesting the matter is settled. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment, but I think that the dispute is less likely to be resolved the longer this interpersonal issue is discussed.  Sandstein  06:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA on MickMacNee & Scott Macdonald

Howdy Sandstein. The RfArb might have to be scrapped & 2 seperate ones made. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not by me. If the ArbCom doesn't want to do its job, I'll not do it for them.  Sandstein  17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ

Would you mind taking a look at what I regard as a personal attack from this user? I have asked him a couple of questions about the editorial position he has taken on Talk:Stonehenge, and specifically his understanding of consensus. He has responded that my edits (which were a good-faith and seemingly uncontroversial attempt to clean up an article) as "little better than vandalism". He has then stated "You appear to have some trouble understanding basic English!" which I find offensive, and undone my attempt there to ask him to clarify or justify, and my attempt to remove the insulting statement. It's clear that there are some misunderstandings at the article, and I may have been brusque in article talk in my annoyance at being reverted twice on changes that seem to obviously improve the article and comply with MoS guidance. Nevertheless I see no need to let this insult stand and I would like it removed or justified. Can you help me? Thanks if you can. --John (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide the relevant diffs? Thanks,  Sandstein  06:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• "little better than vandalism"
• I ask him what he is talking about
• "You appear to have some trouble understanding basic English!"
• I ask him to clarify
• He undoes my edit; summary "Rvt. Not getting through."
• I remove the personal attack
• He restores it using rollback --John (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Any response? --John (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming soon.  Sandstein  19:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not good. I've left a message.  Sandstein  19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is rubbish. If I ask a user to stop annoying me on my user page and they continue to do so then I think it is fair to assume they have failed to understand what I consider to be basic English (the alternative is that they are being deliberately disruptive). Also this user has suggested I am unfamiliar with the wiki definition of vandalism and implying that I have accused of it. In fact in this case I stated that my opinion is that contributions of the sort he has made are little better than vandalism (I happen to view edits of that type as at best unconstructive, at worst disruptive; in either case they do not (again in my opinion) actually improve the quality of an article which is all that I am concerned with). Note that this all occurred on my talk page. I would have that that any reasonable editor would have taken the not-very-subtle hint that instead of deliberately provoking a reaction and then whining about it (and wasting more people's time), it might actually have been better to just desist, which was in fact my intention all along. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, any prior issues between you two aside, comments such as the ones you made are not acceptable. WP:NPA applies equally under all circumstances. We have a very clear definition of vandalism and it is extremely impolite to liken somebody's good faith edits, even if mistaken or misguided, to vandalism. Please take this opinion by an uninterested bystander on board.  Sandstein  20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this is based on a different interpretation to that which was intended. I am happy to refrain from repeating my opinion in such a form that it leads to a repeat of this episode. At the same time I would appreciate that if a user is requested to stay of my talk page then they should do so! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they should.  Sandstein  21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request...

Hi Sandstein, I am not sure if this will matter in the least bit, but perhaps you can re-review the unblock request here with the additional information I've noted taken into account. At the very least, even if it does not change the need for a block for copyvio, I suspect it doesn't make the claims of him outright lying seem appropriate, since I doubt that can be proven. I've oft-times ran into original contributors (or already known them personally, or at the least found them through some other forum) in some of the areas of my interest. Anyway, I dont know if it will change anything, but at the least, there is now more information on the matter. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What matters is that he uploaded works labeled as own works and freely licensed, which he now admits were not in fact created by him and were subject to copyright restrictions. Where the images really come from is of no importance in that regard.  Sandstein  19:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks for the response... I never saw that part (since the image is now deleted) and all I saw was this part, where he apparently did not claim it was his image: "and then lied about where these images came from. (Saying it was taken by a friend, you just needed to document his permission, etc.)" - that being the case, I am all for the block (wasnt quite for or against before) as I have a zero tolerance attitude for such copyvio issues from an experienced editor). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Block

Just saying that your block decline was invalid. I was blocked for "harrassment of Sarek" not for the teeth remark. I had already apologised for the teeth remark and had already but up a wiki break notice to acknolwedge I lost my temper and that it was inappropriate. By that time I had even invited the original person I was in conflict with to constructively begin working on the Lhasa article. Similarly I was no longer "harssing" Sarek and was actually harassed by them 3 times. Your actions to prove a point and say oh yes everybody must be 100% civil at all times and at all costs at times is hopelessly redundant. The real world does not work like that. If you had blocked by yesterday morning immediately after my comment then I'd not have quesitoned it, it would have been justified. but not after we had patched it up and had begun discussing how to move constuctively forward. There was aboslutely nothing to gain from me being blocked from wikipedia. Your refusal to unblock looked like you had to prove a point and "do it by the book". As for my "swearing" it ws pretty mild, certainly less offensive than the very colorful words I see used on here from time to time. PLease do a little background research when faced with similar scenarios in the future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, your comments are noted. If there was indeed no reason to block you (any more) at the time of your unblock request, you did not communicate this well. Your unblock request was very long, confusing and did not contain any useful links, contrary to the recommendations at WP:GAB. Since I could not make heads or tails of it, I simply looked at your edits, and they were indeed problematic. You are indeed required to be civil at all times, even when you believe that you were provoked or harrassed.  Sandstein  14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK but I think you need to understand that if you write quality work which you see in Architecture of Lhasa article and you find it completely missing from the lhasa article with some snarky edit summaries and a most unpleasant toned message telling you NOT to write it it looks terrible you may get upset. Coupled with the fact that I received a prod warning over an obviously notable article at once it really annoyed me. And I had gotten on with other things until Sarek pointed his finger at me when I thought it was completely unnecessary. The reaosn why YM unblocked me is because he knows it does nothing to help wikipedia. I understand that anythign uncivil goes punished on here, which is why if I had actually been blocked minutes after my teeth remark I'd have understood. But the fact that the block came hours after and that I had not only apologised for it but was trying to be constructive and edit sweeter pastures I thought the block ubjust and the sort of thing that might push you over the edge in wanting to stay at wikipedia. I'm not an average editor, that certainly doesn't make uncivil or violent comments acceptable but yes occaiosnally I flare up and usually I apologise soon after and by the end of the day have moved on. A block today would have prevented me expanding Montevideo today. Please see the version from last night. So YM is right that wikipedia is better off with me editing and not blocked. If I try to just dleete unplasant messages from my talk page instrad of responding I may be able to avoid it in future, but as you well know impossible situations crepp up on wikipedia and get blown up to big proporitions when a change in behavior by every party involved earlier may have completely avoided it. Best regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mama grizzly

Hi Sandstein. I expanded the Mama grizzly article to include a history section[6]. Good call on the AfD close. I also deleted a lot a photos[7] and it took me about five hours to write that history section, so if you can put this article on your watch list, I would appreciate it.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice, but since I am not interested in the topic, I don't see what could be gained from me watching it.  Sandstein  07:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Make sense. No worries. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kühntopf

Hello Sandstein. I'm going to ask for the deletion of above. As you must know, the guy is totally unknown and hasn't published anything that is even near being considered reliable (with the exception of his dissertation which would be by definition, if anybody would care to cite it). In the German Wikipedia, (content removed per WP:BLP,  Sandstein  13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)), let alone an article. I do not quite understand why the English article was restored [8] in the first place. The guy is not going to become notable, regardless of (content removed per WP:BLP,  Sandstein  13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)), or don't you agree? ajnem (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no opinion about the notability of this person. My previous deletion was essentially procedural, because no notability was even asserted. I recommend that you discuss the matter of notability with the creator or apply at {{notability}} tag before nominating it for AfD. I've also removed from your post certain allegations concerning an identifiable living person that are not compatible with WP:BLP.  Sandstein  13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo. I'm sorry, if I've written anything that is "not compatible with WP:BLP", and apologize, even if I don't understand what it was. I don't like to be called "a shady character" by anybody, least of all an IP [9]. Can you (help me) do something about that, or do I have to spend time getting aquainted with how to deal with that kind of unpleasantness in the English WK, which obviously is a lot more civilized than the German WK? Thanks, ajnem (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not good. I've issued a warning. If this continues, you can ask for assistance at WP:WQA.  Sandstein  22:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you, that took care of that IP, but what about this one, who deleted [10] the notability-tag? ajnem (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

user:ajnem, please do stop your dirty campaign through all Wikipedias! More Civility (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Or the above, who removed [11] the tag again? ajnem (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've warned More Civility to observe more civility, and nominated the article for deletion to settle the edit war about the notability tag.  Sandstein  17:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections!

Dear Sandstein, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 00:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chair

TPH has NAC'd the AfD you contributed to and moved the article to The Chair (Grand National) and established The Chair as a disamb. I have no problem with that but don't think the current name is quite right. If you're interested, please contribute to the discussion at Talk:The Chair (Grand National)#Rename. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this was a good topic to be NAC'd, but as a participant I may not revert the closure. As to the naming issue, I've no opinion, sorry.  Sandstein  22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Bigger digger (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. These questions are very extensive and I don't know whether I have time to answer them all, as I would prefer to reply to the "official" questions first. Would it be OK if I were to copy them one by one to the questions talk page and answer them if and when I have time? Regards,  Sandstein  01:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First, for the record, it is policy that the general questions should come first... after all, they're a warm up for my much tougher and more probing ones! As to your approach, I suppose. Other candidates who wanted to not answer all(a small minority) merely had me move them all over and have been working them as and when they want. But your approach might work, I guess. Saves me copying them over. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After receiving another long list of questions from another editor, I have decided to adhere to the default system of "one set of community-developed general questions and one additional question per editor", which I presume has been put in place precisely to avoid the distribution of dozens of long prepared lists of questions... This means that, I regret to say, I won't answer your prepared list of questions, but will certainly respond to any individual question that you might want to ask. Regards,  Sandstein  07:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly your prerogative, although you are in a minority. Most other candidates managed, and many have commented favorably on the questions themselves. Thanks for letting me know, though. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hooray. I might give you another star on my guide just for this. Polargeo (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are there no other options?

Why can't I get anything done here? It's getting very frustrating dealing with this bureaucracy. No one has told me why there 100% zero tolerance where I have been at this for days now and I will keep at this for as long as it takes until I get some clear cut answers, the arbitration committee seems busy or something. So what would YOU do in my position. You can see from my IP address that it's been consistently the same person (ME) for the same time. So what do I do? Keep posting the unblock template until I get some actual logical answers why I'm not the person I say I am, and somehow you believe I'm dangerous enough to be kept off a leash? All I want is my name back. I'm going to be here regardless and I feel strongly enough to pursue it. 96.50.86.207 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on User talk:Spartan.  Sandstein  20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You've effectively made me leave Wikipedia. People like you are the reason that wikipedia has such a bad reputation. All I wanted to do was contribute and start constructively contributing to the project. But you literally didn't even care about that or anything else to do with the project. You're obsessed with the policies and everything. You never even replied to my post! The first thing you did was block me for an EXCESSIVELY long amount of time. I've been friendly and non-hostile from the beginning and all I've gotten was terse one word replies from all the administrators. I don't expect you to read this, or even care, but if you actually think that this a good way of creating an OPEN encyclopedia, then frankly you shouldn't even be on here. I'm not a vandal, but if I was you would have given me several warnings. I GOT NOTHING. If there was any form of accountability on wikipedia I'd report you, but alas, if you're an admin, you're infallible. Cheers, thanks for scaring me off wikipedia. Happy now? 142.104.126.144 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You should read and follow the advice that several people have provided for you at User talk:Spartan. What you should not do is to continue to evade your block with new IP addresses. That IP address is now also blocked.  Sandstein  21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I did follow the advice, I never got anything back. I was using a public IP address, now I've made an account. I'm talking to you, i'm not evading because I have access regardless, Ive been using an IP for months without all these arbitrary sockpuppetry bullshit. Like I said, I'm leaving wikipedia, its more of a blog surrounded by new editors getting beat up by admins with too much time on their hands, and arbcom admins who never reply to emails. Don't even bother being an block Nazi, if I thought there was any accountability here I would of gone over your head long ago. By blanket blocking people you don't agree with, you're just proving me right. The Admin shouldn't be the shutzstaffel of wikipedia. Enjoy riding your high horse. :) Spartan123455 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23

I've consulted with a CU (User:Tnxman307) via email and I'm told that the IPs of Iknow23 and Blackarachnophobia are several hundred miles apart. However, on behavioural evidence, I'm as near to certain as I can be that there is either sock- or meatpuppetry going on with the two accounts. I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not to grant the unblock request(s) and on what terms. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think that leaving the request open for a while and getting the opinion of other admins might help. Behavioral cases like this are tricky.  Sandstein  20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Seems a sensible course of action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it worth mentioning that IPs being hundreds of miles apart is not conclusive evidence. Not everybody uses a local ISP, and the IP I am using now will locate to an ISP which is hundreds of miles away from the IP of the computers in the public library less than ten minutes' walk away. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but certain skills are needed to exploit socks with different IPs, and these skills are not often found in people whose editing focuses exclusively on trivial aspects of pop music. If there is abuse here, it's more likely meatpuppetry.  Sandstein  11:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any WP:ROPE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your WP:MAD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay

Hello Sandstein. Having come across this at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Wikifan12345/James_G._Lindsay, I think your decision to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay is a WP:COPYRIGHTS problem due to preceding messy copy-merging. I think you should undelete the deleted history, for good practice. I assume that there is nothing problematic in the history requiring deletion. Noting COATRACK concerns, and the rebuilding of content against consensus, protecting the redirect may be a good idea. I will comment additionally at the MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the history and protected the redirect at James G. Lindsay. Restoring it as an article would need a WP:DRV discussion.  Sandstein  06:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I was involved with an appalling sockpuppet (the edit filter is preventing me from typing it here). It should be noted that I was not solely responsible for this sock: there were multiple people involved, and admins involved with the SI seemed to spot this early on. Unlike some of the other individuals involved, I have always tried to enrich Wikipedia and make it better, as well as vandalizing. From April-November of this year, I didn't vandalize, but have found myself blocked again because a user sussed out that I was part of the aforementioned sock. I have tried several times over the past couple of years to make amends with admins, but I am either ignored or told that I must make an unblock request from the first account I ever used. I could never remember the first account, and knew that talk access would have been revoked anyway, as with the other socks. Today, I remembered: it was User:Bigjimsanders. Of course, there is no talk access: can you allow access? While I did at times show a poor attitude from this account, a look at it reveals that it was largely constructive, and even created an article still active today (I've created a lot more since from a number of accounts). I am clearly not a career vandal: I have done some good work here. I intend to do the right thing and make a donation to Wikipedia if I am permitted to further my career here, not to buy friendship with admins, but to support a project I care for and all the while prove this to others who doubt my sincerity. People do grow up and see the error of their ways. 79.75.198.46 (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page.  Sandstein  06:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm trying to contribute the following to the Wikipedia:AN#Unban_request_by_.28part_of.3F.29_The_abominable_Wiki_troll, but it is constantly being disallowed for some reason:

"The situation is a bit of a mess, but one that can be resolved. As admins sussed out early on in the SI, this was not the work of just one person, with myself (a Tiscali editor) and another Virgin Media editor being the main players. However, several other users in my home (generaly students) have contributed to the sock. I stress that I'm not playing the "everything was my flatmate" card: I accept full responsibility for my actions. I have, as of literally NOW, demanded everyone else in my residence to stay away from Wiki, and they have agreed. The Virgin editor is currently hardblocked and unable to edit from home until February; I have requested that this gentleman does not vandalise Wiki from any location. Overall, I am aware of five indivduals involved in the sock: myself and two other individuals in my home, and the Virgin editor and another individual in his home. As I explained to Sandstein, I will be moving to a new home by myself in January and likely subscribing to Sky broadband... I'm not sure how "checkuser" works, but I assume that admins will be able to verify my new status. I have at times shown appalling attitude and been rude to admins and other users, but I have made many good edits and created mutiple articles during my Wiki career, including two from my most recent account, mentioned above by Sandstein (one has been erased due to block evasion). I am clearly not simply a career vandal. As I mentioned to Sandstein earlier, there's no 100% tangible proof that I have changed my ways: people will have to take me at my word. After a few months of constructive editing, all fears will be assuaged. If a murderer can be freed from prison and given the opportunity to build a constructive life in society, I believe that a remorseful vandal (who has, all the while, created multiple articles and contributed many good edits), should be forgiven and allowed to contribute to Wiki. 212.139.53.219 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)"

Strange, you should be able to post there. I'll copy it over.  Sandstein  15:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As I though, other admins aren't interested. Jpgordon has referenced an edit I fully explained to you earlier, and is using it against me. The masurbation unblock request was by the Virgin user... perhaps someone can check. And the tag on sanders resulted in a death threat from someone who worked for Mr. Haughey, whose article I created. An obvious opportunity for admins to exert their "power", with no thought whatsoever for my good work. Thanks for your efforts, but I encourage you to invest your energy in something else now, and close the discussion. 212.139.53.219 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Arb

I voted for you, silly goose. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence!  Sandstein  21:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. We may not always agree on matters of arbitration, but there can be no doubting your diligence, dedication and willingness to engage with editors and fully explain your reasoning. Best of luck. Rockpocket 13:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I am awarding you The Admin's Barnstar for trying to understand and to help out a banned user even, if a user is just an IP. Unfair blocks hurt, and IMO it is better to miss on a situation, when a block is warranted than to block or refuse unblock an innocent editor. Mbz1 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  Sandstein  23:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Genocides in history

It would appear that using the talk page is irrelevant and redundant when other editors, such as User:Yalens, continue to revert unsourced sentences.[12][13] This after I had tagged all unsourced sentences on Nov 11th[14], then explicitly outlined why certain references do not support the sentence they are "referencing".[15]

User:Yalens logic is;

• Blantantly ignore what I have posted, told me, "....Franciscan monks, I would suggest you simply go and find the editor who added that.."[16], followed by reverting everything.

• Then I get the accusation of not "actually discussing material, just like before, you are going to threaten to unleash some mod on me...", followed by accusation of battlefield mentality, then this statement, "If you would not mind letting him simply say all you'd like to say about the issue so I can negotiate with someone... much easier to negotiate with... that would be much better for the page as a whole.", apparently now User:Yalens dictates who should edit which articles. Of course then followed by a wholesale revert.

Instead of edit-warring, I am tagging the entire section. Can you take a look at this situation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think that both you and Yalens are trying to improve the article in good faith, but you are not communicating with each other effectively. My advice would be to try and identify the individual points of contention and try to get third parties to look at them to break your tie, e.g. via WP:3O. You should also both avoid assuming bad faith in each other, per WP:AGF, and stop reverting each other until you have a third party opinion. Unfortunately I can't provide that, as I know too little about the subject. See also WP:DR for what to do if that does not work out.  Sandstein  07:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DRV of Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures

You marked this as a procedural endorse for lack of discussion with the deleting admin, however to be fair the editor listing this for review did discuss with the admin performing the G4 in question - User_talk:Fram#Deleted_page, that was over a month ago. Perhaps you could take another look? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've struck my comment.  Sandstein  08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

7 days

Hi, Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Mariology 7 days have passed. Could you just close that Afd, given that there is clear consensus, so we can move on? It will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't close an AfD in which I've participated. Another admin will eventually close it.  Sandstein  08:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. History2007 (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion

As someone how is (unfortunately for you :) well informed about WP:ARBMAC, and contemporary Kosovo status, you input will be highly needed at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I see the problem. That thread seems to be about content disagreements with respect to Kosovo. I can't speak to that as an editor, as I have too little knowledge about the topic. What administrator assistance is required?  Sandstein  22:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But did you read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split? Vital info was edited without consensus. And it is not about your knowledge, i am writing to you as we need administrators help. Read sourced info in that thread, and post your comment, as we need uninvolved admins who can see this situation from neutral side. Please, please, set aside some time, and read this, and post your comment there. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I scrolled through it, but to the extent that I do not find it incomprehensible and WP:TLDR, it looks like a content dispute to me (i.e., people disagreeing about what should be in an article). I am sorry, but administrators do not have special powers to decide content disputes. We know no better than other editors what should or should not be in an article. Please see WP:DR for advice about how to solve such disputes. Administrators can only intervene when there is a problem other than people disagreeing about what should be in an article. And if there is such a problem, you need to explain to me, briefly, what the problem is so that I can help you.  Sandstein  23:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that people have constant content dispute for years now, while some propositions are made that can stop that, but cannot be done without administrators opinions. Can you post some proposition or advice there? If it is just content dispute, then administrators advice can help a lot. There are no need for sanctions now, just for neutral opinions that all of us can trust. Please, Sandstain, get involved! Say what do you think! Propose something! We need to find a solution for this page, that can evolve into reliable, neutral article. Without admin help, this content dispute will not stop, as it didn't in all these years. You are one of only 4 admins that was invited to help. Everything was well explained, so you can read it clearly, and get involved without much problem, or archive digging. I am not inviting you as some decisive body, or something. And this is more then people disagreeing. Just read this, and say what do you think. We need your help! Help us. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've offered my opinion as an editor, for what it's worth.  Sandstein  00:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is all i wanted. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I hereby award you this kitten with my gratitude for being courteous and well-reasoned during my RfA in the face of pile-on opposition. I will do everything I can in my new role to allay your fears and if you ever have any concerns about me please do not hesitate to let me know! Good luck at ArbCom and I hope our paths cross again. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)