User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/September

Michael Kühntopf

Hallo Sandstein. Wie ich sehe, hast du meinen Artikel über M. K. ratzfatz gelöscht. Schade, aber so ist es nunmal. Damit meine Arbeit nicht ganz umsonst war und ich vielleicht später erneut einen Anlauf starten kann: Wo finde ich den Artikel jetzt, ich würde ihn gerne kopieren und aufbewahren. Danke für deine Mühe. -- Schweizerfreund (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe Michael Kühntopf unter User:Schweizerfreund/Michael Kühntopf wiederhergestellt. Du kannst den Artikel gerne wieder in den Hauptnamensraum verschieben, sobald er die Relevanz des Themas gemäss WP:BIO behauptet und damit nicht mehr nach WP:CSD#A7 schnellöschbar ist. Gruss,  Sandstein  05:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sehr freundlich von dir. Besten Dank. Woran mangelt es insbesondere bei der Relevanz? -- Schweizerfreund (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nach WP:CSD#A7 werden Artikel über Personen schnellgelöscht, wenn sie nicht angeben, weshalb der Betreffende wichtig oder bedeutend ist. Der vorliegende Artikel enthält keine Aussage über die wissenschaftliche oder anderweitige Bedeutung dieses Philologen. Für die Relevanzkriterien siehe WP:PROF.  Sandstein  13:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Na, das ist ja eine Wissenschaft für sich, das muss ich mal in Ruhe studieren und überprüfen, ob der Artikel dann noch berechtigt ist. Einstweilen danke! -- Schweizerfreund (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was hoping someone would do this before long. I don't think FT2 is still an arbitrator, though. Nathan ^T 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll pass. I know too little about the Olympics and the politics surrounding it.  Sandstein  05:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your response. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Overly quick close to Jayjg discussion

You closed it in only 5 hours (16:32, 2 September 2009 to 21:26, 2 September 2009). Enough time for alerted partisans to get their friends in, not enough for people involved in the actual articles under discussion to get their say in. But hopefully he'll take the incident seriously. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

AE is not a place for community discussion or for involved people to get their say in; it is for administrators to decide whether enforcement action is warranted. Please see my comments in the thread above.  Sandstein  13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I should have looked above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert ban

Since an interaction ban has been imposed, does the revert ban with respect to Ryulong still apply to my own talk page? You seem to imply that it would be an exception if there were to be an interaction ban in this discussion. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the revert restriction remains in force. What I said then (correctly, as it turns out) was that you were about to receive an interaction ban in addition to the revert restriction.  Sandstein  16:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, because the exception is urgent now, and merely wanted then, I needed to ask. Thanks! Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not impose the exception since there's an interaction ban? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it yet? You are prohibited from interacting with Ryulong, which includes reverts. I will not answer any more of these inane requests.  Sandstein  17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Udjo Ngalagena

Hello Sandstein, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Udjo Ngalagena has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest prod deletion - a Google News archive search shows probable notability)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Who makes the decision on whether or not to Unban editors at ArbCom enforcement?

Hello Sandstein. A little while ago I made a request for someone to make a decision on my banning at Arbcom. Who am I supposed to contact to get this matter settled? You supported unbanning us but aren't we still banned? AncientObserver (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44#Discussion concerning AncientObserver I supported your unban (not necessarily that of others) but other administrator did, meaning that there is no consensus to unban you, meaning that your unban request failed. You remain free to petition WP:ARBCOM to lift the topic ban.  Sandstein  05:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi. Please see the CU results here: [1]. Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs), banned per report at AE, is evading the ban and edit warring on AA topics. Also there's a new bunch of Ararat arev (talk · contribs) socks. Thanks. Grandmaster 09:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All blocked.  Sandstein  10:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 10:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

1 hour archiving

Apparently you have your auto archive set to 1 hour. Don't you think that's a bit extreme? Please answer at my page so the answer doesn't get archived away and we can discuss at our leisure. If this gets archived (by the bot, rather than by you personally) unanswered I'm not sure what I'l do, mail you perhaps. But I think 1 hour is way too short unless I'm missing something. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm... While MiszaBot only visits a talk page once a day (unlike ClueBot), that still means that if a thread _{(or new comment)} were made shortly (but at least an hour) before MiszaBot's arrival, it might get missed. –xeno^talk 18:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC) _{Made more accurate per Lar's observation –xeno^talk 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)}
  • Not just made... I commented on a thread that had been there for a while, but my last comment was a little over an hour old when MiszaBot came by so poof. No idea if Sandstein ever saw it or not. I'm still hoping for a reply on that comment. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I set this up to clean my talk page prior to a wikibreak and forgot to change it back.  Sandstein  19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also restored the thread you commented in from the archives, below.  Sandstein  19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! (I must say setting archive more frequent on a wikibreak seems about opposite of what I'd do, but then I hand archive anyway) ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Premature closure of AE request?

Hi Sandstein,

re the request concerning Jayjg: Though I agree that a few editors crossed the line and contributed little else than unhelpful ad hominems, I don't think it benefitted the discussion to close it after just five hours — there were many unanswered questions and far from a consensus to close it (with for instance uninvolved admin Gatoclass saying "I think [Jayjg's] edits are clearly within the area of the conflict").

Some of the questions that could have been answered:

1. What exactly is the scope of Jayjg's topic ban? If the question of a particular newspaper's pro-Israel/anti-Arab bias is not Arab-Israeli conflict-related, what is?

2. Since Jayjg's edits apparently weren't considered violations by a few editors at the time you closed the discussion, is it now OK for him and other similarly topic-banned editors to discuss (and edit) the same topics, namely Ahmadinejad, anti-Semitism, pro-Israel bias in media, the Qu'ran and different modern interpretations of what it says about Jews?

3. How do other topic-banned editors determine which topics are outside the scope of the ban? Can they safely assume that anything Jayjg edits in the future will be considered non-actionable, or will it have to be determined through repeated AE requests, like this time?

4. Was it correct to warn User:Nickhh for discussing inclusion of citations that accuse a particular newspaper of anti-Israel bias? If so, why did Jayjg get off scot-free for removing citations that accuse another newspaper of pro-Israel bias? Anything that gives rise to suspicions that WP admins employ double standards is detrimental to the project.

MeteorMaker (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I intended to ask about this also, particularly the last point considering that at least from my review, the issues with Nickhh's edit and the fourth listed by MeteorMaker are identical. Regarding Nathan's point above as to FT2, I think it must also be noted that Coren is then the only arbitrator to comment, which in fact leaves no arbitrators who participated in the decision (Coren did not vote, and his pre-arbitration criticism of MeteorMaker was in fact repeatedly cited in the case). With respect to FT2, it seems that he also explicitly misconstrued the language of the remedy, or at least did not address suggestions that he had done so. Considering the implications of these evaluations, and that this arises as Jayjg has just recently returned to significant editing, I would think that additional arbitrators' views on this should be sought to make sure the scope is well understood. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have been justified to allow the discussion to continue for at least 24-hours, because some arbitrators with potential input may have been in their sleep cycles. That being said, if no one else has done so already, I wanted to thank you for getting involved as an administrator on the ArbCom enforcement board, as it may be one of the most difficult areas in the project to administer and adjudicate. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I guess any other arbitrators with input could just reopen the discussion since that is their perogative. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, Mackan79 and Cla68, thank you for your input. If you believe that the topic ban of Jayjg needs clarification in the areas you mention, the place to obtain that clarification would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for clarification, not WP:AE. The clarification you seek can only be provided by arbitrators, which do not usually contribute to AE. AE is normally the place where uninvolved admins determine whether specific actions violate a specific remedy. In this case, it is safe to say that there was practically no chance that further discussion would have provided administrator consensus that the edits at issue violated the topic ban, which is why it could be closed per WP:SNOW. The proper forum for more general clarification, as I said, would be Requests for clarification. The matter involving Nickhh did not involve edits by Jayjg and is thus not relevant to the only question presented in the AE request, which is whether or not Jayjg violated his topic ban.  Sandstein  05:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response, Sandstein, and indeed that may be largely correct. I am nevertheless concerned that the premature closing prevented the conventional wisdom in this situation from solidifying, which is that editors under a topic ban should not push the boundries at all. In Nick's case a specific remedy did not result either, but the conventional wisdom was highlighted by a number of completely uninvolved editors (certainly Jayjg was not involved in that discussion, but the case did involve the identical remedy to here, which affects multiple editors, and accordingly for which a consistent application should presumably be sought). Here, a number of substantial misunderstandings continued to prevail at the time of the close. FT2's statement that the ban only applied to articles within the area of conflict was one, and the idea that two arbitrators had commented in their roles as arbitrators was another. You noted that several of the comments had become unhelpful, but I think this can't be a reason to prematurely close the discussion. GatoClass clearly saw a violation, and on AN/I Gwen Gale suggested the same. This leaves Coren, Nathan and you who did not, although you were the first and only to address MeteorMaker's fourth listed edit, in your close, from an extended discussion about whether the Washington Times' reputation for being pro-Israel bears mention in Unification Church antisemitism controversy. Substantively speaking: if the question is where the topics of antisemitism and the Arab-Israeli conflict intersect, it must be exactly the discussion of where "supporting" or "opposing" Israel (in the Arab-Israeli conflict, of course) and antisemitism are relevant to each other. This is exactly where editors like Jayjg, G-Dett, MeteorMaker and the rest of us have been in disagreement (disagreements which of course always focus on policy, and yet where the sides are frustratingly predictable).

It may not be a big deal; no one knows how these things will develop. If the suggestion was that editors may make edits that fall within the area of the topic ban so long as their edits relate to a tangential topic, however, then I think this will lead to more disputes. In future discussions the understandings with Jayjg and with Nickhh will have to be reconciled. Knowing Wikipedia, of course there's the risk that such discussions will focus more on who has been "warned" than on what was decided, something which surely we don't want? I'll likely settle for raising these points with you, as I'm not up for making a request to ArbCom (in fact, I don't see that a clarification as to the remedy is needed), even as I strongly believe that additional clarity is needed. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that AE is just not a general discussion forum, but an enforcement venue. If you feel we need a wider discussion about our approach to such sanctions, and about the issue of boundaries, I recommend starting a discussion through WP:RFC, WP:VP or in a topically aproppriate noticeboard. With respect to edit four, FT2 also addressed it, and I agree with his assessment. My closing the thread was principally aimed at stopping the pointless mud-slinging on the part of involved editors, and does not preclude sua sponte enforcement of the remedy by another administrator who concludes that Jayjg did indeed violate the topic ban. I was not aware of any ANI discussion, to which there is no link in the AE request. Finally, as a procedural matter, the closure was probably also required because contrary to the instructions the filing user did not notify Jayjg and provide a diff to that effect. Sandstein  11:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I hope you take my point that the uninvolved administrators did not seem to to get a clear appraisal. Note in FT2's statement: "Part of a quote within it relates to the conflict. But the article is not in the area of conflict, and that is his restriction." Of course anyone under this impression would not have seen a problem. The discussion with Nickhh incidentally is here; the AN/I discussion in this case was here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I too, as an administrator who is involved in arbitration enforcement from time to time, think you closed this discussion prematurely and ask that you reconsider the action, because there well may be enforcement needed in this incident. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reconsider" in this context means "don't do that again" because it's too late to reopen at this point given the time that has elapsed. ++Lar: t/c 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted; I'll give it more time next time. Though of course my closing the thread does or did not prevent you from taking any enforcement action that you deem appropriate on your own.  Sandstein  19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... and true. But then where would one document it? :) ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the log section of the AfD case page, I guess, as directed by the remedy.  Sandstein  20:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean the RfA case page? ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the WP:RfAr page. Damn alphabet soup...  Sandstein  20:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ingri & Edgar d'Aulaire publicity photo.jpg

Hi Skier Dude,,

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. Since I am not very good at Wikepidia code, I guess it's best to track back the entire exchange.

Your quote:

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (File:Ingri & Edgar d'Aulaire publicity photo.jpg) ⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ingri & Edgar d'Aulaire publicity photo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unquote.

My reply.

I did not upload the file directly but via the Contact Wikepedia link on the left in which I explained to the Editor (Looks like he might have used a Mac, and I have a PC which made his last name look strange--probably Pierre Gras or something like that), that as a son and heir to the coyrights held by the late authors I can assure that the photo is in the public domain. I wrote:

My original quote:

Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:27:18 +0000 From: Photo Submissions <photosubmission@wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2009083110066537] Publicity photo of "d'Aulaires" To: Per Ola d'Aulaire <olad@optonline.net> Organization: Wikimedia X-Mailer: OTRS Mail Service (2.4.x CVS) X-Powered-BY: OTRS - Open Ticket Request System (http://otrs.org/) Original-recipient: rfc822;olad@optonline.net X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090901-0, 09/01/2009), Inbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

Dear Per Ola d'Aulaire,

Thank you for your email.

31.08.2009 21:23 - Per Ola d'Aulaire schrieb:

The attached publicity photography was passed along to me by my parents, children's book authors, Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire upon their deaths in Oct. 1980 and May 1986 respectively, along with other materials. The photographer is unknown and the photograph is undated but I can attest that it dates from the 1930s. It was most likely commissioned as a work for hire by my parents' publisher at the time, "Doubleday, Doran", as a publicity photo to accompany the publication of their Caldecott Award winning book, "Lincoln" in 1939.

It is in the public domain and has appeared in several journals and scholarly works about children's books without attribution. I, with my brother, are copyright holders to all my parents works, and we are very careful to guard all the material that is copyrighted working closely with our literary counsel to do so. We can guarantee that there is no copyright applicable to this publicity photograph, which has been widely and freely disseminated for many years.

Could you kindly attach the photo to the Wikipedia article entitled "d'Aulaires" (which is slightly misspelled as D'aulaires in the Wikepedia entry: the "d" should be lower case and the "A" following the apostrophe, upper case. i.e "d'Aulaires"

The title of the photo should read, "Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire, circa 1939"

(I tried to upload the photo by clicking on the Upload File link on the left of the entry page, and it went somewhere, but I do not know where. The formatting process for Wikipedia entries, except for basic text editing, is far beyond my skill level.)

Sincerely,

Per Ola d'Aulaire

We have received permission for your image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ingri_and_Edgar_Parin_d%27Aulaire.jpg, and have made the necessary modifications to our article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingri_and_Edgar_Parin_d%27Aulaire. (The title "D'aulaires" is merely a redirect to the correct title.) Thank you for using the Wikimedia photo submission system.

Sincerely, Pierre Grés

-- Wikimedia Foundation - http://wikimediafoundation.org Press room: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room -- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org

Unquote.

Perola (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't find thread

Hi,

I very recently sent you a response to a message I received from Ski Dude concerning a photograph I subimtted for the article on d'Aulaires but can't find either the original incoming nor outgoing messages. I'm afraid that the Wikipedia interface may be a bit above my 70-year-old head.

Perola (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The message by SkierDude refers to File:Ingri & Edgar d'Aulaire publicity photo.jpg, which you uploaded to Wikipedia without providing certain required copyright information, which is why it was flagged for deletion. I have uploaded the same image as Commons:File:Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire.jpg to Wikimedia Commons, our shared media repository. It is this image which is used in the article, Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire. The first image is therefore redundant and I have deleted it. You may ignore the message on your talk page. Best,  Sandstein  19:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking?

[2]. Seriously? The discussion below, including people who a) dislike Ottava (in my case), and b) cannot agree on anything... means nothing? You declined the unblock on purely procedural grounds? → ROUX ₪ 22:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not joking. Users requesting unblock are expected to provide a concise explanation why they want to be unblocked in the unblock template. See WP:GAB#Give a good reason for your unblock. This applies to all unblock requests.  Sandstein  22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words yes, you declined the unblock on purely procedural grounds without paying attention to what was actually going on. Par for the course with admins these days, but really, one has hopes that some admin somewhere will stop the insanity. → ROUX ₪ 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ottava Rima makes an unblock request that addresses his block, I will certainly evaluate it the next time I look at CAT:RFU.  Sandstein  22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond preposterous. Go read the section immediately below his unblock request. Making him dance through a stupid bureaucratic hoop does nothing for your credibility here. Bear in mind this is coming from someone who despises Ottava and thinks he should have been indeffed a long time ago. → ROUX ₪ 22:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am here to help run this encyclopedia, not to gain credibility with random people on the Internet. Your feelings towards Ottava Rima or towards myself are irrelevant. Unblock protocol is that the blocked user must provide a reason for his unblock request. "-" is not a reason. The reason why a unblock reason is required is that the blocking admin, who is a volunteer and usually has limited time to devote to such matters, does not need to waste time reading a usually very long user talk page to find out whether there are any arguments supporting an unblock. If the blocked user does not want to spend the time to give a reason for his request, admins generally do not feel that they need to spend the time looking for one.  Sandstein  22:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See that thing receding into the distance? It's the point, and you missed it. Oh well, hardly surprising given the state of the current admin corps. → ROUX ₪ 23:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Roux, since you are evidently better suited to do this job than I, I look forward to your upcoming RfA.  Sandstein  06:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, lovely. Snide mockery. Very cute, and it really does a lot to inspire even more confidence in your judgement. Well done, sir. → ROUX ₪ 12:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but unblock requests, as well as the surrounding circumstances, typically need to be thoroughly reviewed. If an admin can't do so due to time restraints, wouldn't it be better to leave it to another sysop? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also true, but the blocked user is not helped if his inadequate request just sits there and is (potentially) ignored by one admin after another. If he is alerted to the inadequacy of his request by a procedural decline, and can compose another request, his block may get a faster review on the merits.  Sandstein  06:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ottava

Hello Sandstein. I have reversed the block on Ottava based on what I interpret to be a general consensus by the community to do so. I did so under the impression that your decline of his unblock request was merely procedural in that his request lacked a given reason. Since then a significant discussion has occurred and reason have been given.

I try very hard not to reverse a prior admin's decision without discussion taking place first and I include unblock requests in those decisions. The circumstances lead me to believe that your unblock response was not so much a denial but a request for further information so in this case I do not think that I was reversing any decision of yours. I would certainly have contacted you first if I thought otherwise. I hope you think the same way, I don't want to step on anyone's toes more than needed. Chillum 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but of course I do not object; my decline was indeed purely procedural.  Sandstein  06:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Passed with a note about grammar. You might want to take it into consideration for flow. Your current hook is only 120 characters, so it could have a little more or be altered (my slight grammar fix would take it to 129, so no worries). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not a native English speaker, so any improvements are of course welcome.  Sandstein  19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Blood agent

Hello! Your submission of Blood agent at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You still have a chance to expand the article to 5x within a few days. That is usual and don't take those blue, or even orange, DYK crosses as a definite No. Yes, tables, bulletted text, pictures don't count. We all use this tool for length. Materialscientist (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Apologies, I did not see your mention regarding Email, I took availability of the link as an endorsement of its use. My purpose in contact was to state that if you have any concerns regarding my edits or edit history, please feel free to raise those to my attention, as I value my integrity and believe all my edits have been done in good faith based on reputable sources. I was wary to extend that request to you in public as I did not wish to invite outside commentary. I will contact you here in the future should the need arise. In retrospect, I was perhaps overly sensitive to certain comments and this action was probably not needed. Best regards, VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Best regards,  Sandstein  19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Forensics in antiquity

On September 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Forensics in antiquity, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Go away

Your harrassment of Russavia in blatant violation of Arbcom ruling (you are just as involved in the topic as he is) is a disgrace. Go away. You don't belong to here - join the Navy. NVO (talk)

How am I involved in what?  Sandstein  16:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A solution

Sandstein, the latest broadening of the ban to entail ALL topics relating to Russia is unacceptable. It is not only myself who think this, but also User:Ezhiki and User:Alex Bakharev (both fellow admins of yours), and other editors have also expressed their disagreeance with the ban and the way it has been handled. I posted a compromise solution to what is now going to be a problem here. You mentioned that the initial banning had support at WP:AN/I. There were 3 admins who believed the banning was warranted, however, I am certain that they would not support the way it has been handled. This is already evident by those who have posted on the talk page. As I have mentioned part of the blame for this drama lays with me, and part belongs to you. I feel that answers to my questions have been answered in such a way that it makes it nearly impossible for one to ascertain exactly what I am or aren't able to do on this project. I take severe issue with your generalisation of my editing as being disruptive -- this generalisation was reinforced by your banning me from ALL Russia articles, when it is evident to anyone who looks at just some of my work here on WP, that this is not the case. If one says that there was consensus on AN/I for the banning, one would also have to say that there is now consensus that the way the ban has been handled is nothing short of a screw-up. You may be tired, but so am I...do you really think I want this wikidrama? As I have posted at the above link, you believe that my disruption is based around the Baltic states, so perhaps a solution that is easy to manage, given that you have not explained just what entails "history", and which will keep me away from those articles in which you believe I am a problem, is to amend the banning to only include articles which relate to the history of the Soviet Union and Russia in relation to the Baltic States. It makes absolutely zero sense to ban me from articles such as say Aeroflot, when there is no evidence of disruption in this area. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of other editors (including 2 fellow admins). I am suggesting a fair and equitable solution, which gives both you and myself a way out to the impasse that we are now at, whilst also making it perfectly clear in my mind, and the mind of other editors (including those who just wait for me to break ban to report me). The only other choice that I have is to take it to WP:AN/I, and I don't think either you or myself need the extra drama - there should be no "bullshit" on WP, and I want to get rid of it as much as you, but this, frankly, is bullshit of the extreme, and we should be ridding the project of it, not exaggerating it further. The ball is now in your court. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this proposal is that you have not shown any sign of seriously recognizing the cause of your ban, i.e., your extremely disruptive conduct. I considered indefinitely blocking you straightaway for this "I'll fight you to the death", but settled on a topic ban as a milder option, although I may yet change my mind if the topic ban approach proves to be insufficient. (Please don't reply with "but User:X has done even worse things" - even if others are also disruptive, that has nothing to do with your disruption, and does not justify it.) Moreover, your block log indicates a history of disruption across several Russia-related topics. Indeed, many of the edits you made after your unblock were reverts, which is not a good sign at all. This means that any effective topic ban must be wide enough to cover all topic areas in which further disruptive conduct by you can be reasonably expected given your past history. The prevention of further serious disruption outweighs, in my opinion, the loss of any productive contributions that you might make in this topic area. If you disagree, you are free to appeal my sanction, but note that per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, the proper forum for such an appeal would be WP:AE. My advice, however, would be to stop feeling sorry for yourself and obey the topic ban. If you show that you can edit in other areas without disruption for an significant length of time, I may be amenable to reducing the scope of the restriction.  Sandstein  17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You leave me with no choice but to take this to WP:AN/I, I will not be doing it at WP:AE, as this is now also about your behaviour as an admin. Also, my revert to Alexander Litvinenko was due to this. Apart from the massive removal of NPOV sourced material from the article (of which there is a long history) and reinsertion of material which fails verification, there is also the matter of the constant reinsertion of WP:LINKVIO by said editor. See points No 11 & 12. Funnily enough this is the same article that the accusations of Vladimir Putin being a paedophile were made (you know, the ones you said I wasn't able to report, then said I was, then said I wasn't, and then said I was), and it is was my NPOV'ing the accusations and reverting the reinsertion of the very poorly sourced WP:BLP violations that led to me being blocked for WP:3RR, whilst said editor got nothing. You see, there are reasons for many actions on WP. As to you saying that I don't recognise the cause of the ban, I recognise it, and I cop it on the chin...I said that a few times if you care to read anything. But what I did not cop, and still not cop, is not knowing what articles I can or can't edit. See you at WP:AN/I. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, Russavia will have all the chances to "recognize the cause of his ban" during the following six months while the ban is in effect. The whole purpose of the ban is to show a user that some of his/her behavior is unacceptable. By now, however, the ban itself is not as much of a problem as your handling of it. Extending the coverage of the ban is solely your idea (based on pretty weak premises, I might add)—you cannot support it by referring to the initial AN/I banning discussion because the outcome of that discussion was not what you now claim it to be. The very least that needs to be done is to bring this back to that very same AN/I thread so the new circumstances could be discussed. However, considering that "the new circumstances" basically boil down to your inability to phrase the terms of the ban (be it because you are tired or for some other reasons) and choosing to broaden it instead, I can understand your reluctance to do so. As it has been correctly pointed out, your actions have now been questioned by two admins and several rank and file editors (neither of which can be considered "involved" by the ArbComm judgment definition). As an admin, you should understand that it is the right of any Wikipedia editor in good standing to question actions of any admins if such actions are not seen as rational or justified. Please kindly address this inquiry. I, too, am not at all eager to drag the issue of your handling of this situation to AN/I, and I very much doubt that is something you are looking forward to either. Russavia's proposal is a very reasonable one, and it's not like the terms cannot be amended later if they turn out to not be broad enough.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:20, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have already said what needs to be said in this matter.  Sandstein  20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I actually can very well imagine how not fun it is to patrol WP:AE, and I understand perfectly well that's a job that needs to be done if we at all care about the integrity of the project. I also can imagine how doing such a job day after day after day can quickly plant cynical attitude towards anyone and everyone against whom the arbitration decisions are being enforced, and I can understand how hard it is to recognize the signs of that cynical attitude settling in and take proper precautions. With so few admins willing to patrol AE that one cannot take a proper break without risking a backlog building up, such cynicism may even be something that we need to learn to live with; at least until more volunteers show up. What I don't understand, however, is your "I am right, I said so, so I can't be bothered to provide any explanations" attitude. It's one thing to ignore Russavia's requests—from your point of view he is probably merely a wikicriminal who committed something for which restrictions were imposed upon him—but it is another matter entirely when no less than five other (uninvolved!) people ask you to explain just what it was exactly that you were trying to do. As much as I appreciate you devoting time to patrolling AE, in your particular situation it might be prudent to consider taking an extended break from this task, as in my opinion it affects both your judgment and your actions. Not everyone who had sanctions imposed by the ArbComm deserves to be treated like trash, and certainly not Russavia, who in his relatively short tenure here did more for the project overall than I did in my five and a half years of being a Wikipedian.

We should never forget that our primary task is not to re-educate users on the virtues of being good citizens; it is to build an encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. Aberrant behavior should be prevented and punished only to the extent of its interfering with our primary goal. Restraining a rambunctious user so others could edit in peace is one thing; restraining him "just in case" or because you one doesn't like his attitude in general in another matter entirely. As admins, we are expected to eat more flak than regular editors; if one doesn't like it, one can always step down.

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to, by the way. Thanks for reading, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:16, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

the topic ban

i find your decision completely ridiculous and i'm politely asking you to instruct me where can i appeal it. thank you. Loosmark (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are directions for an appeal at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  08:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why on earth is Sandstein's overbearing behaviour being so tolerated, just ignore and overule. Being an Admin does not confer the right to run the project. Sandstein needs to be reminded of this - very firmly. Giano (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand those directions, please just indicate me the proper page where i can appeal. thank you. Loosmark (talk)

The remedy provides: "Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee." If you do not understand these directions, I cannot help you further.  Sandstein  08:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the same page where the case was discussed yesterday, is that the appropriate page for appeal? Loosmark (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is one possible place for an appeal. If you want to use it, you should start a new section explaining why you disagree with the sanction and what action (such as a lifting of the sanction) you propose. If there is administrator consensus that the sanction should be lifted or modified, another administrator will note this in the case's sanctions log.  Sandstein  08:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of True Family

An article that you have been involved in editing, True Family, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Family. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hedi Enghelberg

I am Hedi Enghelberg and I want to understand your statement about the article: Hedi Enghelberg how do you know me and my work?

present your creditials in the literrary world.
you have any academic or university diplomas
you have any published books or articles?
you have received any literary award?
you have any pier-reviews of your work?
do you have contributed with your work for this World to be a better place?>

Why you have post my article for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enghelberg (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My credentials are not relevant. What matters are our rules about which people we have an article about; you can read them at WP:BIO. Based on the article you wrote about yourself, you do not appear to meet them. If you think you do, you can explain why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedi Enghelberg.  Sandstein  15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An interim solution

Sandstein, in order to reduce the impact of the topic ban on Russavia, and the urgency of the appeals, could we allow him to continue working on the articles that are currently in his userspace. Once delivered into mainspace, any topic ban imposed would apply. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is an ongoing appeal against the sanction (even though made in the wrong forum, and therefore probably ineffective), I would prefer to wait until it is concluded one way or another before modifying the sanction in any way, to prevent additional confusion and wikilawyering about the scope of the ban.  Sandstein  05:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably should know this, but ... where is the ongoing appeal? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (p.s. I am commenting here without my arb hat on; sorry I didnt clarify that before)

At WP:ANI#Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein. I just wrote there that "I am tired of this drama and propose the following: If any uninvolved administrator (i.e., nobody involved in Eastern Europe content disputes) believes that any other sanction against Russavia would be more appropriate and workable in lieu of the current broad Russia/Soviet topic ban, I do not object to them imposing that other sanction instead, with the understanding that they would be then responsible for any enforcement and fallout management."  Sandstein  03:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peau d’Espagne

On September 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peau d’Espagne, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-Vandalism

Aber ich denke dass es ist keine Verschiedenheit. Sind egal. Jingby (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you try that in English? It makes no sense in German.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It still makes no sense to me.  Sandstein  20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987 thread

Hi. Do you happen to know why the Mario1987 thread on AN/I was archived with no final comment and no resolution? I've never seen this happen, and I must say I'm perplexed. Dahn (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently because nobody kept editing it, the bot archived it. I've now resolved it with an ARBMAC warning and a 1 month block for the racist comment; the sources issue was not really clearly established because (I guess) few people here can speak Romanian.  Sandstein  05:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I have to say it's quite inconsistent at the core: Mario himself admitted that the he had manipulated the sources, and it was a pretty clear-cut case, regardless of one's language skills (the Romanian article, which he acknowledged to have copied, simply did not have any citations, yet his article did); in fact, on T:TDYK his assertion is just now taken as proof that the nomination should be withdrawn. I should perhaps add: I am not saying this because I'm looking for a "harsher" penalty; I would have seen more of the point if the sourcing problem to be highlighted, considered and explicitly mentioned in relation to his sanction (whatever that sanction may have been), because that would have increased the chances of him not repeating his acts of prestidigitation. I still hope that, through the discussion and the current block, he learns a lesson he has persistently failed to learn the simpler way, one about the importance of presenting information accurately and honestly. And since his Maramureş xenophobia is getting in the way of civilized interaction, I can only hope he has learned a lesson in that area as well. I also wonder how DYK reviewers are supposed to be AGFing his proposals from now on.

Anyway, thank you for your response. Regards, Dahn (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokerdance

Since you are the admin who declined the unblock reason for the above user, I thought I'd better come to you since the blocking admin seems to be on a break. The above user was banned for a fortnight for failing to live upto a 1RR compromise. However, I belive that the user is escaping the block through socking and created the account User:D.C. Blake. The contributions are totally same and still the disruptive reversions and 3RR's continue alongwith going against consensus, nominating articles and direct attack at users during discussions. An investigation has been initiated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pokerdance. Would you please check that? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do this evening.  Sandstein  14:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

		The Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		Thank you, Sandstein, for the great effort you consistently put into arbitration enforcement. It's a low reward task with a supersized and regular ration of crap, and we owe you for taking it on. Nathan T 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate it.  Sandstein  14:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark

Dear Sandstein, I think Loosmark's wikilawering is getting out of control; we may have to be block him for a short period to stop disruption. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Since admin actions of both of us are under review at the ANI thread, I believe that neither of us should take admin actions related to that thread. ANI is watched by plenty of admins who will take any action that is required. Also, I do not believe that his argumentativeness rises to the level of blockable disruption.  Sandstein  15:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we should leave him, but in future, if he doesn't change his behaviors, action will have to be taken against him. AdjustShift (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby

Hello from me Sandstein. I would lik to ask whether this wil remain unsolved? Calling a user with nationalistic names, insults and "clowns" counts at least block. I am very insulted by him and I want a decision, hopefully a right one. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Patience, please. An admin will attend to it eventually, if the matter is found to be actionable.  Sandstein  20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein rocks my socks

(Caveat: I am writing this purely as an individual normal editor.) Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions. You apply KISS and cut the Gordian knot by extending a tried and true method while keeping the matter of logging and appeals extremely simple and straightforward. Bless your heart. Vassyana (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I particularly appreciate this because you, with an arbitrator's experience, probably know better than many others what will work, and what won't, in the field of dispute resolution and rules enforcement.  Sandstein  19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting in the work on the DS policy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing editing restrictions on ANI

It's not hard to get people to agree with those in clear cut cases, e.g. [3] (VG there it's me, I've renamed the account so searching for my name on google doesn't return my wiki user page as 1st hit, but I've preserved my full edit history). I agree that in tag team cases, getting consensus on ANI can be harder, but those cases usually end up before the ArbCom sooner or later because blocks can be contested on ANI as well, and a single admin on the "right" side can undo them, etc. Pcap ping 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bilderberg Meeting

Lecochonbleu (talk · contribs) created a talk page for this deleted article asking about your very funny comment when closing it. I deleted that and explained that we couldn't have a talk page for a deleted article. The editor then replied on my talk page (and although he's given warnings to people he's pretty confused) and then edited the AfD itself - I'd suggested that he ask you what he'd asked on the now deleted talk page, but again he presumably misunderstood so asked on the AfD. Maybe you could respond to him so we can hopefully end this.Thanks Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  Sandstein  07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me...

...that you are catching a bit of crap on the 'boards just at the moment. I consider that to mean that you are adminning effectively. I may, of course, be wrong - but when do admins ever get told they are doing right? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! You might be on to something there.  Sandstein  14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Nathan ^T 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

user:scuro

As per the arb comm decision Scuro was to have either have found a mentor at this point or have had one appointed. Any possibility of moving forwards on this? [4] ThanksDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an arbitrator or otherwise involved in the case, so I would not know, really. Sorry. I suppose such a question could be asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests.  Sandstein  04:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at AfD

Thank you for this remark. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding AfD deletion

Dear administrator Sandstein, I am addressing you this way to state that I respectfully disagree with your decision on deleting article Kresimir Chris Kunej. I know bad faith nomination accusations are not fun, but I don't know if you even considered my statements. The fact does stand that editors Drmies (nominator for deletion), Bongomatic (delete voter) and ChildofMidnight are on very good terms. Their Talk pages are full of mutual playful friendly comments, and they award each other medals on a regular basis. They even refer to each other as "Doc", indicating private level acquaintance with each other. User ChildofMidnight page also includes the following: "This user votes Delete regularly for the Article Deletion Squadron. Please join us! An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed and poorly cited, it should also be deleted because we'd rather not fix it. There may be sources out there, somewhere, but there are more useful ways to spend our time. Like deleting articles." What is Wikipedia if certain groups can band together and influence it to their desires? It is the duty of administrators to keep that kind of behavior in check.

Regardless, your explanation of deletion was "the author's discourses are much too long to usefully consider in their entirety, and Judo112's keep comment is weakly argued, whereas Drmies's review of the sources, in fine, is persuasive". Do you realize you stated that because keep arguments are too long I do not wish to consider them? This does not seem fair to me. In editor Drmies final comment where he "reviewed the sources", he completely omitted mentioning two newspaper sources in addition to two TV shows, and his comment about sources showing "paid dues to professional organisations" is plain wrong. A source showing membership in an APPOINTED national committee which created profession standards directly shows significant impact. No one disputed WP:PROF criteria that was met. Also, I do not see how you reached a consensus here. You disquilified my discussion because it was too long, omitted editor AMorePerfectOnion's "weak keep" vote, and another editor was made to abstain from voting due to canvassing accusations. Would you kindly take a second look and maybe reconsider the deletion?Turqoise127 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but it does not make me alter my closure. Any association between people arguing "keep" has no impact on the validity of their arguments unless they are WP:CANVASSING each other, of which I see no evidence. Moreover, I do find it fair that unpaid volunteer administrators cannot be reasonably expected to thoroughly evaluate and address (I did read everything you wrote) novel-length arguments. As to Drmies' closing comment, there is no point in re-arguing the merits of the AfD here, which is what any discussion of the actual sources here would entail. Finally, as regards consensus, per WP:DGFA, administrators must determine consensus by evaluating the strength of the arguments expressed in the closure, because deletion discussions are not votes. If you want to appeal my closure, there are instructions for doing so at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kresimir Chris Kunej

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kresimir Chris Kunej. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Sandstein, seems that a mediation process was opened on the Ukrainian-Polish relationships here: [5]. I see from the comments there that Piotrus thinks that I will be banned (!?) if i participate. My understanding is that I am of course allowed to participate in the mediation which will help improve the general situation and understanding between editors. I just wanted to ask if my understanding is correct and to give me a formal "go ahead" to enter mediation. Loosmark (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I am excepting from your topic ban all edits required to participate in official mediation proceedings about the topic, subject of course to the condition that you observe all Wikipedia norms of conduct in such proceedings.  Sandstein  20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also thank you Sandstein. This was very fair from your part. All the best.--Jacurek (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For you immediate attention [6]. Giano (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I have asked for mediation [7] and the case hasn't been closed yet. I'm asking for the right to present my position there. Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The case has not moved forward since 27 August 2009, and nobody has accepted your request for mediation. I will only lift your topic ban for the purpose of participating in mediation if there is a likelihood of substantial mediation actually taking place.  Sandstein  11:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at AE: [8] I don't think that ethnic attacks like this should be tolerated in wiki: [9] Thanks. Grandmaster 07:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the topic bans

I am still shocked that this is seriously considered, but could you considered commenting on this? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not really in a position to comment on this, because I am not privy to the evidence on which the proposed topic ban is based. If the Committee does adopt such a wide topic ban, I expect them to have good reasons for it.  Sandstein  06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Milarepa, Pango Chorten, Gyantse .JPG

Hi! Yes, it does seem a bit strange at first that he has his left hand up - the usual portrayal is with the right hand to his right ear. Anyway, I had a look through my old photos tonight and all the other ones that I can check from that roll seem to be correctly orientated, so I assume this one is too. My wife says she remembers remarking on the unusual portrayal at the time - but this was many yearsa ago now and I must admit I cannot remember.

I have also been looking through numerous other portrayals of Milarepa in my library and on the internet tonight and have so far only found two others portraying him with his left hand up. They may be rare, but at least they do seem to exist. These two images may be accessed at: http://www.kagyu-asia.com/lineage/milarepa_life/milarepa_m1_2.jpg and http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/images/milarepa.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/links.htm&usg=__reCXBXc9bn3vvhLoQb4ZOUc-z8U=&h=133&w=131&sz=7&hl=en&start=441&sig2=cUKZpCowZwfiKcA67dlyFQ&um=1&tbnid=eGRZ2TLUXsdMrM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmilarepa%2Bimages%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D432%26um%3D1&ei=e7-0SpT9FIqKtAP2t_HRDA

I think it is a bit much to suggest it is an insult to show him with his hand up to his left ear (it certainly was not deliberate on my part and I doubt, from what I have read of Milarepa, that he would have been offended) and, aside from returning to Gyantse to check, I don't really know what to do. If I can contact a friend of mine who is a very well-known Tibetan painter, I will ask him his opinion about the iconographic implications (if any). Hope this is of some help. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh

Sandstein, I object to your close on this as I would like to see another checkuser confirm with certainty that this was Nickhh. It is not clear why this check was run in the first place, and considering that Nickhh denies it was him, as well as that the ip also shows random vandalism, there should be more evaluation than from just one person. The discussion should be reopened for another checkuser to review, at least. Mackan79 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am reopening the thread, so as to allow another checkuser to evaluate the evidence. Meanwhile, Nickhh can appeal his block through the usual channels.  Sandstein  17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you may have seen I just commented to Brandon asking if he would clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewed this again, and appreciate your leaving it open while I was away. Seeing Brandon's explanation and Deskana's confirmation, that's good enough for me. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight

I'm inclined to honor his unblock request. Our current President is going to be mentioned in hundreds of articles. When one editor decides to add his name to an article, it does not automatically make it Obama-related. Should Kanye West be off limits as well because the President referred to him as a 'jackass?' Where are you going to draw the line here? Besides, the length of the block seems vindictive. Law _{type! snype?} 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment. I think however you were acting in good faith as well. I do not know if you have a prior history with COM however this raises a few issues that need to be cleared up to avoid a repeat of the preceding. Would an Obama block extend to all politics? For example Obama is heavily involved with health care. Arbcom and whoever should confer to the limits of the restrictions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with both your assertion, Law, and with your out of process unblock (and Obama is not my president; I'm European). The topic ban covers "Obama-related articles ... broadly construed", my emphasis, and this organization seems to relate to Obama in a politically significant way. I also do not know what you mean by "vindictive", as I do not know what I am supposed to be vengeful about against ChildofMidnight. (Hell in a Bucket, I am not aware of any prior history with ChildofMidnight, though it is possible - I didn't check - that I sanctioned him previously for something or other.)

Law, I ask you to please reinstate the block of ChildofMidnight (at the maximum permitted length of a week, as correctly pointed out by Evil Saltine), or I will request arbitration with respect to your interference with the enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions.  Sandstein  06:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully ask for arbitration. I stand by my action, and will be fully accountable for it. There are about seven different paths you could have taken. You could have gone to CoM directly, and discussed the merits of him editing his article. You could have called in a third opinion. You could have gone to the committee which set the topic ban, and discussed whether or not ACORN was an Obama-related article. If so, you could have simply asked CoM to stop. Instead your actions indicate that there was a dire need to give him a template and a thirty-day vacation. I believe you applied this block as arbitrarily as you did the block length. If it is so important to you that CoM spend a week thinking about his behavior, you will simply have to make good on your promise to take me to ArbCom for interference. I'm an adult and I won't take it personally. Law _{type! snype?} 06:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Law, what you say makes some sense, but it needs to be put in the context of Arbitration enforcement. It is a difficult area to begin with, and generally speaking these enforcement doctrines are created because of extensive and long reaching problems. This is designed to lower the threshold and tolerances given to users. At the very least, it is best if you announce these intentions on the relevant arbitration enforcement threads.--Tznkai (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been nice to announce the intention to block, rather than my intention to unblock? At least that way it wouldn't have resulted in a block that exceeds what is policy. Law _{type! snype?} 06:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement blocks, more so than blocks in general, do not normally require prior consensus or discussion, because the merits of the case have already been through arbitration. As to the block length error, I'm sorry about that and would of course have corrected it had I been given the opportunity.  Sandstein  06:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But I don't see the problem with discussion. In fact, I think only AC can decide if this is truly a breach of the ban. We clearly disagree with how it is applied, which often happens with a 'broad' interpretation. I know the history of ACORN (we are having serious problems here in California), and it was created nearly 40 years before Obama was in office. While that is not the greatest rationale, it does explain why I think that the US President will be involved in many aspects, such as the Kanye incident, but that doesn't necessarily mean the ban was meant to prevent CoM from editing all articles, even if they are tangents. Law _{type! snype?} 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is incumbent upon administrators enforce arbitral decisions, which means that they have to decide whether an edit constitutes a violation or not, and as I said, in an arbitration enforcement context the time for discussion is usually long over. Whether or not my block was correct, though, you have no excuse for unilaterally undoing what was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action. Please reinstate the block at once and seek community consensus at AE or ANI about whether or not it was correct; if consensus does not support a block of one week, I will of course lift it.  Sandstein  06:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Law, I think the evidence will show that Sandstein has been nothing but tireless in working AE to the best of his ability and fairness. Any criticism of him, however fair or unfair should be within that context. Likewise, Sandstein, we get very little out of insisting anything out of our fellow volunteer admins to do, or undo anything, and focusing on procedure at this point is impractical.

In the case on point, procedurally, Sandstein is absolutely correct. It is the nature of arbitration enforcement that administrators are left to figure out for themselves what arbcom meant, the thresholds are low, and the decisions can be very quick. However, I think there is a legitimate argument that ACORN, while obviously in the same political football field, is not sufficiently within the logical reach of Obama related articles to have constituted fair warning for CoM. Is there somewhere we can come to an agreement?--Tznkai (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot block an editor when there is no certainty that he did anything wrong. It sends a poor message to him. And I do have an excuse - I used my tools to honor an unblock request. This idea that he should be blocked until a decision is made is foreign to me. It is the presumption of guilt, as well as prevention from allowing him to participate in an obviously impending ANI request. Law _{type! snype?} 07:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM has had plenty of poor behavior, as you yourself have noted, so this isn't an issue of has CoM done something wrong. Editing a political football like ACORN by including a White House statement, and then posting a lengthy screed instead of a simple common sense defense when called out on it, all the while under a topic ban after an ugly arbitration case is quite frankly, self destructive. I am far more interested, and hope the two of you are equally interested, in practical questions of effectiveness, and general questions of fairness.

Again, all of these discussions can take place, and should have taken place, on AE. Aside from the basic fairness and politeness involved to your fellow administrators, it is way more useful to have the discussion where many eyes are likley watching. Furthermore, unblocking without discussing at some length the blocking admin tends to lead to drama, especially when arbitration enforcement is involved. Of course, the administrator so affronted shouldn't really get all that worked up about it either - its just a damned website, and its just a block.

Is there anyway I can get people to agree in principle that discussing such blocks amicably on AE would have been better?--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, especially that any discussion about the propriety of my action should have taken place at AE. Because it has not, though, I have now requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight.  Sandstein  07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I just fixed my rather stupid error above, so let me reiterate more clearly, lets not get worked up over something this trivial.--Tznkai (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel particularly worked up, but I would like to find out whether it is worth spending any more of my time at AE. That would not be the case if the ArbCom agrees that administrative actions taken in the enforcement of its decisions can be undone on a whim.  Sandstein  07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They obviously can be. Whether they should is an entirely different discussion, and whether someone should go through arbitration to find out is still another separate gigantic can of worms. Regardless of whether you feel worked up or not, arbitration is the Wikipedia bench mark for making a big deal out of something. Let me make it easier on you, please. Stop responding to AE. Let others take care of it - or maybe they won't. Either way, it isn't your job.--Tznkai (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no reason that anyone should get worked up about this. We obviously have two editors, who happen to be administrators, differing over what the topic ban may or may not include. I am all for letting AC set this right, as I do not feel that I am the best candidate to interpret their ban in the first place. While I am clearly not enthusiastic about going in front of ARBCOM, it was the right thing to do because only they can elaborate on this broad topic ban. There are no hard feelings on my part, and no getting worked up. Law _{type! snype?} 08:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

to clarify my part......Sr. Sandstein I wasn't alleging you have a past with Child of Midnite, just to acknowledge if you did I was unfamiliar with it. I think that this subject should go to ARBCOM. As stated earlier to Edit anything Obama related is a stretch right now. I urge you to go to the Arbcom and ask for a clarificaiton as to the limits. I can see your points but Law has great points too. The only way Acorn and Obama are connected is from the accusation from last years presidential race. But to extend an Obama block to everything political would be a tad too extreme, everyone of our laws will be signed by our president......doesn't mean the article is about him.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword and RFAR

Does Reword remove other people's statements? (Scroll down.) Looks like a simple mistake, but wanted to let you know in case it was the script. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That was certainly the script. I'll report the bug and re-add the statement; thanks.  Sandstein  13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nareg510

I have unblocked Nareg510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He says he's through editwarring, and I'd like to give him a chance to try again. Fred Talk 00:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, ok, but you are aware that this is Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a banned sockpuppeteer? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask Glen (talk · contribs), the admin who banned the sockmaster account, and unblock that account? And possibly ask for community consensus first, because this is a longtime disruption issue?  Sandstein  06:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think such discussions would be futile. Clearly a puppet-master with over 200 socks should NEVER be unblocked. However, provided I monitor his editing, I see little prospect for harm, other than to my reputation, to give him a brief trial. Fred Talk 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally jump into discussions like this, but this caught my eye, and I noticed that Glen's block was in January 2007 and Glen has made 10 edits in 2009. Last edit on 7 August 2009. Surely that should be taken into account when advising someone to "contact the blocking admin"? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, of course, I didn't check that. Though since this is a longterm disruption issues, there ought to be plenty of previously involved admins around who are active.  Sandstein  05:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Nareg510 --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Sandstein/Archives/2009. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unban of user Ararat arev (talk · contribs). Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=314696358 Would you be so kind to answer?Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I did.  Sandstein  10:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have missed your answer.

In another words, you Xx236 are guilty, because you are weak. Thank you for this explanation of Wikipedia ethics.Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me.  Sandstein  11:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To me either. You have done twice what S. had wanted. He rewrites articles, removes POV tags and I have no right to oppose. This Wikipedia is more and more an anti-Polish forum. I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but where can I protest agaisnt discriminations if Cabala is a wrong place? Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions explains how sanctions can be appealed.  Sandstein  19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for feuding

Sandstein, this diff makes me feel concerned that you are engaged in a feud with KillerChihuahua and Giano (who are known to be friends). Please back away from this situation and stop lobbying for blocks of your political opponents. This will be best for all concerned. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not in a feud with anybody, and I do not believe that I have any political opponents. If an admin reinstates disruption by others, that admin should be blocked for disruption himself. Why do you believe that no action should be taken against obvious personal attacks such as the one that triggered my block?  Sandstein  12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Our goal is to prevent disruption, not cause more disruption. Have some tea and think about that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe that [[10] reinstating personal attacks] is a proper thing for admins to do?  Sandstein  12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Join me for WP:TEA. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back. You've now twice erased others' comments [11][12] while trying to fix edit conflicts. That's a good indication that's it's time for tea and cookies. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the second time I fixed an inadvertent comment removal by the other user. Seems to be a bug of some sort. I'm available for tea whenever you are - I have no wish to engage in a conflict with you or anybody else.  Sandstein  12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the feud here. I understand, as does everyone, that blocks of Giano can be controversial - partly because there have been some poor blocks in the past, and partly for other reasons. This doesn't mean he should be immune to blocks, however, and any blocks should be evaluated under the same criteria as those placed on any other user. Whether this block is appropriate or not (haven't expressed an opinion on that) should be evaluated on its own merits, not its potential for being a "drama bomb." Nathan ^T 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My own policy is to ask before blocking if I think there will be serious controversy. If you need to ask for a block review, ask before, not after. If Giano is too controversial to block, so be it. Ask ArbCom to come up with a resolution. They've fobbed their responsibility off on the community numerous times in the past. Ask them to deal with this. Don't go lighting drama bombs. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I have found it to be a rather common phenomenon that someone who blocks Giano for violating policy is accused of being "involved" somehow, but using some strange new definition of "involved". I would not put too much concern in what is merely a double standard manifesting itself. WP:ADMIN makes it clear what "involved" for the purposes of using admin tools means, it also makes it clear that "admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace". I don't think you have done anything wrong. A perfectly normal response to a violation of policy is often called "dramabomb" or such when Giano is involved. The fact remains that if you just treat Giano by the same standards as any other user then you are sure to be accused of such things.

To those who suggest ignoring Giano I will point out how incredibly poorly this has worked in the past. I will also point out that WP:NPA says "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians", so this whole idea of ignoring this one user because they are surrounded by drama seems counter to the community consensus regarding NPA. Please do not be discouraged by the politics of what should be a routine application of policy. It is not anything you have done wrong, just history repeating itself for the Nth time. Chillum 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the best strategy for dealing with Giano is to ask ArbCom to deal with it, since any attempts to deal with Giano by individual admins inevitably produce more disruption than they prevent. This is pragmatism, not necessarily Justice. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy to cause drama by opposing any blocks of Giano on the grounds that all such blocks cause drama?  Sandstein  19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a conundrum. But it's also bad to say that we should not oppose a block for fear of causing drama. We need a solution that is both just and efficient. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose?  Sandstein  19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason blocks of Giano become major events is because well-meaning people, particularly administrators, jump in with both feet following a block. They demand to know what the blocking admin was thinking, couldn't they see they're "involved", don't they know blocks of some people cause far more trouble than they're worth? All the while, they unwittingly play the role of "trouble" themselves. If you've made ten or more comments about this subject, and you aren't Sandstein, Giano or on ArbCom, then you can safely assume that the drama you fear is real, and its you. Nathan ^T 13:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Easing off block button?

Hi Sandstein, I don't think we've interacted much at all but I've obviously seen your around (I first remember seeing a couple of very thoughtful AfD closures from you about a year and a half ago). I've commented over on the RFAR pages about the dustup over the ChildofMidnight block and unblock and now see there is an ANI thread about your recent block of Giano. I won't be commenting over there because, well, I really don't feel like it.

But I wanted to make the friendly suggestion that you ease off on possibly controversial blocks for awhile. You've made two in the last couple of days. As I said at RFAR, I agreed that a block of ChildofMidnight was appropriate for violating an Arb restriction. However you obviously mistakenly blocked for a month when that went beyond the remit of the Arb remedies and, more importantly, when most observers would have considered that excessive given that C of M's infraction was rather minor. I think even a week would have been too much, and personally feel 48 or even 24 hours would have been appropriate. The excessive length of the block undoubtedly contributed to the decision to unblock, which also led to a discussion on the ArbCom page that could have been best avoided. I think you perhaps leaped too quickly into that block which created problems.

Now you've blocked Giano (and though I don't follow all of the ins and outs of the Giano saga, I do recall that you've blocked him before and that this led to some significant controversy) for one week which, as you anticipated, is creating more drama. I don't think that was advisable at all, and I'm concerned when I see any admin lay down two heavy blocks of well-known (and controversial) editors in a short period of time. For what I hope are obvious reasons, that's probably not a good idea, particularly since there are many other admins who can implement a controversial block if it's really needed. Admins undermine their own authority when they give the impression of heavy-handedness, and that's exactly what two long blocks for two heavy contributors in short succession will do.

I think you could pare back some of the drama on ANI if you shortened Giano's block to 24 hours. It was a fairly minor incivility, and clearly many editors (including admins) don't think the block was advisable, which suggests it should not simply stand as is. Beyond that, you might want to step back and think whether it's a good idea for you to avoid any possibly controversial blocks for the immediate future. I don't think you are consciously "feuding" as is suggested above, but I also would not blame other editors for having that impression. Obviously feel free to disagree with what I say here, but it's meant to be friendly (and I think fairly neutral) advice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, which I appreciate. You might well be right. The experience has certainly shown that it is often better to discuss potentially controversial blocks first.  Sandstein  19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You do good work at WP:AE. We need you to keep at it and not become embroiled in controversies. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But maybe you can help me out here. Maybe it's because I do not understand (or engage in) wikipolitics at all, but I completely fail to understand the Giano issue. We have a user who is routinely disruptive over a long time, but a large number of otherwise reasonable people stridently oppose all attempts to do something about it. Why? Is there a "Dummie's Guide to Giano" somewhere?  Sandstein  19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano: The Missing Manual. :-p SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The key is the "do something about it" part. Doing something, doesn't mean do anything and everything. Effective is fine. But just exacerbating the situation doesn't help at all. I don't see how your block did anything to promote civility, and it seems actually to have had quite the opposite effect. It has created a shit storm of feuding, drama, and disagreement. Have you ever experienced a block Sandstein? They usually come in a situation where there is already a high level of frustration, and I can't see that they do anything help alleviate disputes. They certainly aren't helpful in promoting civility and collegial collaboration. It's not a very pleasant experience to be blocked, especially when its not discussed and carried out with appropriate due process and deliberation. In the contempt of cop article you worked hard to highlight the problems of arrogant and abusive police. So I find it very ironic that you can't manage a more collegial and respectful approach in your own policing work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, I would appreciate it if you were not the one to lecture me about civility ([13], [14], [15], [16]), at least until you find an actually uncivil comment I made.  Sandstein  05:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course those comments came in response to your improper and grossly inappropriate block. They have been removed for quite a while now. But you have made no effort to take accountability or to correct your disruptive and uncivil actions. Perhaps you need a month long block to think about how you behave and interact with other editors? Certainly ignoring polite communications and abusing yoru tools is not befitting for an admin. Those uncivil actions are a big part of the tension and negativity we have on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully suggest reducing the block to 48-72 hours per my rationale here. Thatcher 15:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will reply there.  Sandstein  15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from K. V. Mathew

Hello Sandstein, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to K. V. Mathew has been removed. It was removed by Grbpradeep with the following edit summary '(Please see discussion page for criteria)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Grbpradeep before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Since you have experience enforcing ArbCom decisions

Could you take a look my request here. (Initially I wanted to contact Ruud after Arthur recused himself, but Ruud is not active much these days.) Thanks, Pcap ping 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. 71.198.220.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked.  Sandstein  21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you've been accused of heavy-handedness lately, I just want to say that this block appears of a commensurate length to me because the IP has been evading the ban for two months, and the edits were not really aimed at improving Wikipedia but were promoting an external agenda. Pcap ping 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Overtime (novel)

Hi! I've removed your prod tag from Overtime (novel), because the article has already been proposed for deletion. Feel free to take it to AfD instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles

I wanted to note that while I think you are a horrible admin (:P), I think you are able to put together a decent article or two. I would like to see more of your articles nominated at DYK. I think it would be good for the whole Wiki if you spent more time there. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hetoum

Hi. After my report here you blocked the IP 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 year for death threats. Now we have 128.122.90.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reverting the same set of articles to the same versions. Both IPs point to New York University, and previously a similar IP 128.122.253.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from NY University was blocked as a sock of Hetoum I: [17]. Can you please look into the issue with 128.122.90.186? Also, I think that the article Khanate of Erevan should be semiprotected due to edit warring by IPs and socks. Grandmaster 05:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not currently working at AE.  Sandstein  06:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_stain_(2nd_nomination)

I urge you to reexamine your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_stain_(2nd_nomination). skip sievert's keep vote was based on an inherited notability argument. kgrr's keep vote admits that there are no reliable sources. Richard Arthur Norton's keep vote is the only one with even a little validity. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Skip also said "and the term is used by others because of her notability also"; Kgrr said that "The reliable sources come from a very small group of internationally renown water scientists and activists - and of course closely associated with Maude Barlow." These arguments assert the existence of reliable sources for the topic of "hot stains" and are not exclusively WP:INHERITED arguments.  Sandstein  14:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They have still yet to come up with a single academic reliable source (or arguably, much of any reliable source) that even trivially mentions the term that wasn't authored or co-authored by Maude Barlow. Asserting that sources exist without actually providing them is an invalid AfD argument. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That goes a little beyond what an AfD closer usually does, sorry. I can discount obviously bogus arguments, but whether adequate sources exist is a matter for consensus to determine, and here we have no consensus that the sources are inadequate.  Sandstein  20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"There are reliable sources out there" (yet no one can find them) is obviously bogus. A voter making a bogus argument into a wall of text doesn't change whether it's bogus or not. I guess we'll just let DRV decide. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hot stain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hot stain. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a copy of the email sent to you from Vecrumba

Hi Sandstein, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#My_topic_banning I have introduced evidence regarding the email that Vecrumba sent to you, and I have noted that despite the notice on your user page, you did not reproduce this email in your reply onwiki, as you disclose you would do. As there is discussion from this cabal on how to manipulate you into furthering my ban, and I will be introducing more into evidence, this email needs to be produced as evidence so that it can be investigated. Note, that I am not accusing you of any impropriety, but I am suggesting that you were successfully gamed by these editors...for which evidence will be forthcoming as well. I am posting this on your talk page, as I believe you stated that you wouldn't be keeping an eye on the arbcom as you don't consider yourself involved? --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the e-mail of September 9, 2009 mentioned by me at User talk:Vecrumba#Your e-mail. The rules published in the red box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence state that: "No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s)". I am not sure if that is intended to mean I may only reproduce e-mails in this matter on-wiki with the sender's consent (although it does not say so). To avoid making a procedural mistake, I would prefer to have permission either by Vecrumba or by an arbitrator or clerk to publish the e-mail here. I do not know whether it has any relevance to the matter currently under arbitration, though. Any permission should be noted below.  Sandstein  10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the operative word there is or. As you were the intended recipient, you would be able to disclose the email, as per your disclaimer that is on your user page (which really should also be on your talk page as well). But at the very least, you should be able to provide a copy of that email to the Committee, in order for them to have a copy of it for perusal. I believe the disclaimer on your userpage is why Offliner had questioned you about the email, because despite the disclaimer no email was reproduced. The existence of the email is relevant to the matter of course, as its existence is discussed on the list, and in the discussion it is discussed how to manipulate, and continue to manipulate yourself, in regards to my case. Therefore it is entirely relevant one could assume. Of course, Arbcom can't force any editor to release anything to them, but as there is a suggestion of underhandedness going on, and which doesn't necessarily implicate yourself, one would hope that you would do this. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia. I have already explained extensively the content to Offliner and indicated I had not copied myself. I am sure you have seen that, if not, please read my talk page. I regret your taking the opportunity to beat the proverbial dead horse by heaping your bad-faith innuendo upon Sandstein: per "not accusing" + "am suggesting" + "successfully gamed".

   As it is demonstrably the only way to get you and your fellow attack dogs to stop harassing and attacking Sandstein—whose only role in any and all of this has been to act with the utmost and complete integrity—your inquiry here being part of the blatant attempt by yourself and others to discredit him in attempting to make the case that your heinous behavior was not of your own choice to get you off the hook, Sandstein is free to provide the complete copy for public view, XXX'ing out Email addresses and any other of Sandstein's personally identifiable information. (As I don't find it necessary to hide my identity, he can leave my name at the bottom of the Email.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The text of the e-mail, dated Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, subject "Wikipedia e-mail, re: Russavia et al." is as follows:

Dear Sandstein -

I've noticed Russavia bandy about my name in vain, protesting to look at my edit logs and all. I've been on WP quite a while now having locked horns with all sorts of editors including paid propagandist pushers (where I've spent well over $1,000 of my own money on sources when I've needed them to counter blatant mischaracterization). It would be silly for me to contend that my personal background does not inform my personal perspective, but my editorial perspective and whatever I contribute is based only on fairly representing legitimate and reputable sources--if you go back far enough you will even find me adding (!) Russian/Soviet positions on issues of contention.

And as for first editing to properly position and only then deleting *upon further consideration* the Dyukov protest regarding the Nazi-German parade in Brest-Litovsk, I hope my edit comment first expanding the original text and edit comment subsequently removing it are explanation enough. Dyukov already has far too much WP press, being a fringe historian whose sole occupation is denial of Soviet wrong-doings, and whose claim to fame is being featured regularly on English language official Russian cable TV broadcasts so that he can state as an "expert historian" what official Russia wants the world to hear. Frankly, leaving Dyukov in properly positioned, it read more like an opportunity to attack Dyukov for being a twit than to document reliable contentions that the parade never happened. (If after reading the intermediate edit you think I'm wrong, I'd be glad to restore it, but in this case, any mention at all is really WP:UNDUE, and "less is more.")

If you have any questions at all regarding any edit or any past conflicts (sadly, there have been many, but that is the nature of WP in the geopolitical sphere), I'll be more than happy to provide any information you'd like.

My apologies for contacting you off-Wiki--I really didn't want to get into some ugly tit-for-tat with Russavia.

Warm regards, Pēters Jānis Vecrumba

(unlike my opposition, I have no need to hide behind Wiki-aliases)

My only reaction to this e-mail was this on-wiki reply.  Sandstein  14:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Florida State Road 600A

I see that you closed the AfD for this article by establishing a redirect. Can you tell me which editing guideline was used as the basis for doing this? When I review WP:Redirect for "What do we use redirects for?," I can only think that this was established because FL SR 600A is perceived to be a subtopic of FL SR 600 (an alternate name for US 92 in Florida). Did you determine that the redirect satisfied the "principal of least astonishment?" I don't see where the article does that. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I did so because that was the outcome most compatible with consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 600A (2nd nomination). I have no opinion about the editorial merit of the redirect. If you disagree, there is always WP:RfD.  Sandstein  15:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a block review

Hi Sandstein, I just noticed that several months ago you placed User:Matthead under a 1RR restriction here. He has broken that and I recently blocked him, but I do not know if there are any specific instructions for how long the block should be; I made it 72 hours for now, pending your review. See User talk:Matthead#Blocked. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've offered an opinion on his talk page. West Germany is indeed not understood to be in Eastern Europe (That's why it's called West :-), but other aspects of this edit war might warrant attention or blocks. In particular, I find the conduct of new account Flroian River (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit-warring jointly with Matthead, rather suspicious.  Sandstein  05:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Hello Sandstein, would it be OK, if I ask you to give your evaluation on this issue? Thank you in advance. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know too little about this issue to be able to comment.  Sandstein  20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Heya.. (just a thought on AE)

I posted a suggested motion on the ArbCom case (as a statement), next time something like this happens, I would point them to the header of AE, which prohibits the actions that Law took on this case. Just a thought. SirFozzie (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've noted my support for this proposal on the requests page.  Sandstein  11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical question related to the evaluation of evidence

Since you got dragged into this as a completely innocent party simply because we mentioned your name on the list, personally I think you have every right to see the emails (keep in mind though that they could have been altered). I can't speak for others, but you got my go ahead. But also keep in mind that we did express our opinions frankly and not everything said on there is "nice".radek (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A question regarding userfying a deleted article

Despite my passionate struggle, my article Kresimir Chris Kunej was delted (once by you) and the decision was endorsed at Del Rev despite all my attempts. I was wondering if it would be possible to still "userfy" the article in my pages. I wish to keep trying to work on it and to obtain reliable sources for the article, and possibly reinstate it in time. Are you able to do this or should I ask the Del Rev closing editor? Thanks for your reply. Oh, and I see that you are in an admin review case, I am sorry if my closing reasons drama added fuel to the fire...Turqoise127 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made an official request at WP:UND, not having been aware of its existance before. Thank you and sorry for interruption.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)