User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/October

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You're placing an awfully high percentage of the blocks and sanctions at WP:ANI and WP:AE. I advise you to proceed with more care and let others take up the slack. We need you, but the way you're going, you are bound to run into trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Trouble?  Sandstein  11:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, trouble, kemosabe. Tonto ^talk 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What kind of trouble, please?  Sandstein  12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The torches and pitchforks kind. Jehochman ^Talk 12:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Subtlety (and what I assume are American cultural references) is lost on me, I am afraid. Is this a threat, a joke or what?  Sandstein  12:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's serious, good-natured advice, Mr. Lone Ranger. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would appreciate if you tell me what kind of trouble you are speaking of. Disgruntled disruptive users screaming ADMIN ABUSE!!! on the noticeboards? That's not a big deal.  Sandstein  12:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal until you mistakenly block the wrong person, then a whole ton of people will come down on you. Some of these "disgruntled, disruptive users" are good faith contributors who may go astray from time to time, but they do have friends. You're accumulating a lot of adversaries in a short time. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I see what you mean, but I won't play along. I refuse to engage in Wikipolitics, or social games, or thinking of others in terms of friends or adversaries, and I expect all honest editors to do likewise. As long as I'm an admin, I try to do what's best for the project, which generally means applying our policies in an as evenhanded a manner as possible, within community consensus of course. That may occasionally including blocking the "wrong" person. If that brings trouble, so be it. If the community as a whole (as opposed to a few who treat this website as a social network) does not like what I am doing, I have no problem with just going back to content editing exclusively.  Sandstein  15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When you login you can go to ANI or AE and look for a problem to solve, or you can look for an article to edit. I'm suggesting a bit less ANI and AE. You don't need to compromise your principals. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In Sandstein's defense, when I took my break and took AE off my watchlist, he was one of the very few people to pick up the slack. I may not have agreed with him on how he handled some of the things (I think he dismantled something that was working in an area where few sanctions did).. at least he stood up, which is more then most admins do. SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! And I hope he will keep standing up, rather than getting knocked down or burned out. We need to encourage more admins to help so Sandstein doesn't have to do all this scut work by himself. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. One of the following things will happen to every admin who volunteers in AE. A) Due to lack of volunteers (because it's not easy, and it's like firefighting.. all you're trying to do is contain blazes, not stop them), you will burn out. B) You will end up being stabbed in the back (again, you're dealing with every long term dispute at one board). C) Both A and B. (Cynical, ain't I?) SirFozzie (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

D) Periodically walk away and do something else before A, B, or C happens. Then return later when you feel refreshed and can take a fresh look at the conflicts. Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I am doing D now, as I've stopped working on AE because of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight. If the ArbCom won't make sure that admins can enforce their sanctions effectively, they're welcome to do their own enforcement.  Sandstein  19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Law's been de-admined, twice now. What more could you ask of them? Apparently the user did not have the necessary judgment to be an admin. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he was desysopped for an unrelated matter. What I would like is for the ArbCom to indicate clearly that they will in fact desysop admins who undo enforcement actions without getting clear public consensus for doing so. If any admin can undo enforcement actions at will, I'm out of AE. I have no inclination to slog through Giano-scale ANI threads every time I am just executing a decision that has been made based on more than ample discussion and deliberation already.  Sandstein  13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Header inserted by  Sandstein  13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein has accused me of Sockpuppetry, claiming "very strong behavioral evidence", threatening to block me. Now that he was disproven by the Checkuser, he claims "the edit pattern is indicative of meatpuppetry". What next, am I going to be accused of using telekinesis to operate other peoples keyboards and mice?-- Matthead  Discuß   19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser can't prove a negative. What's that got to do with the above?  Sandstein  20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What's it got to do with the above is you not getting advice and continuing to cause trouble to others and yourself at various places. I would call your Sockpuppetry accusation against me the lamest ever, if not in the section right above, someone else would have lowered the standards even more. Your threat to block me, however, is serious matter. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. That's why I advise you to stop what appears to me to be a likely practice of sock- or meatpuppetry.  Sandstein  13:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to let an account go about its business and keep an eye on it until such time as there is solid evidence to justify enforcement. If the user goes off and writes useful articles, then we just leave them alone. No harm, no foul. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence, in this case, but I am not sure whether it warrants sanctions without CU confirmation. Your input would be appreciated.  Sandstein  13:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? Link? Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence is only in Sandstein's imagination, I dare to say. It's real world manifestation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead/Archive. A pretty unceremonious ending (if that is the end). Is there no such thing as an acquittal?-- Matthead  Discuß   15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, the diff over the past month is kind of hard to comprehend. Is it possible to briefly summarise what direction changes to the policy have taken recently? There seems to be some dithering, when it's considered as a whole. Tony (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to editing that policy myself, sorry. What diff do you refer to?  Sandstein  13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The contributions of this account added to the fact that the account was created only yesterday is also suspicious.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect you to file your claim at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Too late, it got archived. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified this account. -- Matthead  Discuß   12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, I expect explanation or apology from Sky Attacker (from Sandstein, too). -- Matthead  Discuß   15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My notification was removed by Sky Attacker. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I will shortly be cleaning up vandalism done by various editors at articles related to Steven Goldberg and patriarchy. You are most welcome to become cognisant with the content issues and participate; or alternatively, I'd appreciate an extra editor keeping one or two difficult editors in line.

I'm quite confident that a couple of friends and I should be able to manage this without your time and trouble, but since you've shown an interest in the past, we'd love to introduce you to the reliable sources that can increase your personal knowledge of the subjects.

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I know nothing about the topics of Steven Goldberg or patriarchy, and they do not particularly interest me. I don't think that I'll be involving myself with the content of these articles. I, or any other administrator, are available to deal with vandalism reports, of course, but such reports are most rapidly processed at WP:AIV. Best regards,  Sandstein  18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

your rewording on RfArb accidentally removed a full statement from Nathan.. could you revert it please? SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Stupid buggy script. Got to stop using it on busy pages.  Sandstein  19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just about to mention the same thing as SirFozzie. I saw you using the Reword script and have started using it myself - haven't encountered this bug yet, but I've been checking each time I use it just in case ;) Nathan ^T 19:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to overwrite very recent edits. It probably ought to purge the server cache or something prior to editing. I've left a bug report with the author, but to no effect so far.  Sandstein  19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You recently indef blocked a sock of Gazpacho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per [1]. Just wanted to make you aware of this IP sock [2]. I blocked it as a sock, and noted that unblock requests should be made for the main account, not its socks. I hope that is alright with you. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And see also this [3]. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And interestingly, now this [4]. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I've no objections to all of this.  Sandstein  05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful close of Hannah Giles AfD. I agree that the case is not clear cut and we should have better information in a few months. If she does disappear into obscurity I will be the first to renom. Ronnotel (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Arent these edits [5][6][7][8] a violation of topic-ban, imposed on Loosemark? --Dojarca (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A link to the topic ban, please.  Sandstein  20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)I

[9], bottom of the page.--Dojarca (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not fully realise the scope of the topic-ban. Anyway, last diff [10] concerns Polish Ukrainians.--Dojarca (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II. [11] concerns content related to that topic, and violates the ban. The other edits don't, as far as I can tell.  Sandstein  20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement, but you can raise this at WP:AE, which is the best venue for processing enforcement requests.  Sandstein  21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julius Anton Glaser, 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.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you send me a copy of the recentky deleted Human Bioversity page? David.Kane (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want this content for?  Sandstein  15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate a link, too. It seems you misspelled the title.  Sandstein  15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume Human biodiversity, a page you deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human biodiversity, was intended. ^Bongo_matic 02:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed your work today on the Blocking Guide.

So I wondered if you new of a Guide regarding Restrictions?

Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.  Sandstein  06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I posted a quick note for you at WP:ANI and WP:ANEW about your block of User:Scribner. I think you were quite justified in making it, but I'm hoping you'd be willing to lift it to give the idea at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Edit_warring a chance. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I specifically requested that the psyBNC article be moved to my user space instead of being deleted, please review this request and take action accordingly. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Link, please?  Sandstein  11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Link. Joe Chill (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want this content for? It needs sources, not general improvement.  Sandstein  15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I second Hm2k's request. I also originally requested userfication to myself in that AfD, but I will support it's temporary undeletion along with the talk page to preserve the revision history and its move under the Hm2k's user page so it can be properly sourced and still improved overall before being able to move back to the main space. Sandstein, please userfy it to Hm2k. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, at User:Hm2k/psyBNC. Hint: sometimes it helps to ask politely and to provide the required links.  Sandstein  06:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If I might also comment here, I think many of these articles that were part of the mass-prod/AfD can be improved/sourced/merged but we really need to coordinate the process and possibly divide up some of the work. (Arguably, psyBNC is one of the more historic and well known BNC programs and I don't see why we won't be able to improve that article.) I've had many of these articles on my own "to improve" list for quite some time but the sheer number of articles in this category got to be overwhelming as I continued to catalog and add them to categories. I've not even had a chance to comment in most of the AfDs yet due to the sheer number of them (and I don't like to comment on sources or notability unless I've already done some research). When the mass-AfD nominations began I finally got around to setting up a sandbox for the WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox which may be of some help. Articles (and their associated talk pages) moved/created as Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/articlename will automatically show up in the sandbox index. There is also a topical index and a to do subpage on the WikiProject. Anyone up for a discussion on how to proceed with all these articles on WT:WPIRC? --Tothwolf (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Sandstein won't userfy it for a reason that doesn't make sense, you could request it at WP:DRV or WP:ANI. I doubt that no one will fill the request. Joe Chill (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been userfied here. Talk here. I invite interested editors to come and improve the article. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but why are you warning me? That's my little, mouthy, idiotic brother than you blocked. I warned him time and again to quit. Also please do not delete my comments. Technically it's my IP, I just have good enough sense to use an account. Also, my brother lost his PW and cannot recover it for some reason. Can you point me in the right direction? - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am warning you because our civility policy applies to all interactions on Wikipedia, even those with your brother (and we cannot verify that he is your brother). If you want to insult him, please do so in private. Disruptive edits are removed and editors who make them are blocked if warnings are not effective. It is not possible to recover account information except by e-mail (if the Wikipedia account has an e-mail account associated to it).  Sandstein  08:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!! you can block that IP permanently if you want. Its my IP and my brother using it. But seriously why did you block me? I am on your side damn it!! That was really uncalled for.. I was trying to get my brother to shut up!! Honestly man what the heck/ll? - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not on "your side", I'm on Wikipedia's side. Our rules prohibit personal attacks and other incivil disruption by anyone for any purpose. Please see WP:ETIQUETTE.  Sandstein  05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL OK tough guy, sorry to bother you. Wont happen again. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this latest comment, I think you might want to lock the talk page edit rights as well for the ANON IP. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

I know you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic and thought you might be interested in participating here.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - interesting question, but a discussion best left to librarians. Best,  Sandstein  15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I get the deleted article's contents userfied?陣内_Jinnai 19:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To what purpose?  Sandstein  19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning two-fold. One the author may at sometime in the future take up the manga again and/or it may also gain notability as part of a study on the author as she is historically important to the manga/anime industry.陣内_Jinnai 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, see User:Jinnai/PQ Angels.  Sandstein  05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that you have deleted the article even though I highly doubt that you are an expert on vnc clients on the mac you might have a look if you can delete any of the other vnc clients mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software as they are ALL in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jollyjinx (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate them for deletion if you believe any of them warrant deletion.  Sandstein  15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Sandstein. It appears your 'review' went fairly well, keep up the tough work. PS: Ya couldn't pay me to assume that job (administratorship). GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Come to think of it, they pay me fairly poorly, too...  Sandstein  15:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the PsyBNC deletion and started to wonder if there is anything I can do about it (to find out if it is really not notable or if there are any print sources). I haven't come up with anything earlier because I am not experienced at all in searching print sources, but google makes it actually easy - and because I thought that nobody would seriously delete the article (I was pretty sure PsyBNC is notable enough). Ok, now it's gone - and I got help with people in freenode/#wikipedia and we came up with this: [12] [13] I feel a bit sorry I didn't come up with this earlier. At least I won't miss google books again when searching print references.

Now, do you think that changes anything? I am still a bit new to wikipedia, but to me it seems to include enough books to say it is if not notable, then at least close to it. Maybe you want to think again about that deletion. I would be glad to add some of those sources to the userfied article if that helps, but as I needed to research first how to format them on wikipedia etc. I thought I'd first ask you what you think about it and if it's worth the work at all - or if those references change nothing and the article should simply stay lost because notability is just not given. Yarcanox (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, these weblinks are just search results, not actual sources. Search results do not change anything. It is not sufficient that books mention the subject; they must describe it in sufficient depth for these descriptions to be the basis of a reasonable article. If you find new sources (i.e., sources not discussed during the AfD) that are reliable, independent and provide substantial coverage, as required by WP:N, you are free to add them to User:hm2k/psyBNC. As soon as you believe that the defects identified at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PsyBNC (2nd nomination) are remedied, you may restore the article to main space, if the notability is now obvious, or else you may ask for a reevaluation of the subject's notability at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you don't think when taking those books into account it will have enough notability? (You seemed to avoid answering that question a bit) Yarcanox (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What specific books? There are dozens in these search results. Google hits by themselves are not meaningful, see WP:GHITS.  Sandstein  17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... all of them (on the first search link [14]). Maybe it would be worth putting some references to them into the userfied article... I'm simply wondering if that would make any difference in terms of notability. And that's obviously my main interest - working on something that won't become undeleted because missing notability still applies seems a waste of time. But I guess I'm not having a good chance with some security books mentioning uses by trojans/botnets/malware? Yarcanox (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to my advice of 16:09, 6 October 2009, above. I have no time to read all these books and give an opinion about their potential notability impact, sorry.  Sandstein  20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given what was documented on AN/I here I don't think the nom's rationale or the !votes from those involved (as documented here) can be taken at face value. This is even more apparent when some of the false or misleading statements from the same editors such as given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 29#LeetIRC are taken into account. When such disruption occurs it also influences other editors who are participating in these AfDs (who really should but do not always double check others' statements) so it would appear in many cases these AfDs were severely disrupted due to those false and misleading statements. Note that I'm not even arguing for a keep in many of these AfDs as I feel they are better off merged and redirected per WP:PRESERVE. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi I wrote the article for fringehold. I'm not related to the company, but I am definitely an expert on rugs- rug fringes are a multi-billion dollar industry. I'm guessing that the reason there is no "rug fringe" article on Wikipedia is because the industry is predominant in the Middle and Far East. Anyways- I read the comments regarding secondary sources (i.e. television, radio, newspapers/magazines) and was going to add them as there has been significant media coverage on it. The only problem is that its now been deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FringeHold) and I can't find the original content to remove the irrelevant references and add the relevant references (as per the feedback)... Please advise where I add the content.Johnroth12 (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the content; you can copy it to e.g. User:Johnroth12/FringeHold for improval before you move it back to FringeHold.  Sandstein  05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam self promoter. Multiple csd removals. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef, all deleted. Best,  Sandstein  05:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article deletion discussion had a non-admin closure by a sockpuppet and the deletion notice was not removed from the articles. Should it be removed, should an admin close the discussion, or should the discussion be reopened? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anything must be done here, because the AfD would probably not have a different outcome if somebody else re-closed it. The article(s) can always be renominated if necessary.  Sandstein  10:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of prisons in Switzerland, 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.

SoWhy 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that awhile back the page for the music artist Lolene was deleted and the page locked. I was wondering if I can scale the entry back and provide more references, there have been several articles on Billboard.com that were not press release related, could you unlock the entry and allow me to publish the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.99.178 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Ryulong's unblock request and accepted it on the grounds that the purpose has been essentially served (I think he's calmed down and won't restart the edit war), there were issues with the An3 report and with the other user gaming / baiting, and the tangential issue of the contentious date unlinking war. This is in no way a criticism of the block, which I'd probably have actioned as well, it's just that on closer reading I think maybe we can let Ryulong off now. Sorry if this offends. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I note the reason you gave for refusing to lift the week-long block on Vk is related to his "block record". Could I draw your attention to the fact that unless you have examined it in detail to eliminate politically motivated interventions this is a very dangerous rationale. On that basis I'd ask you to revisit your block review and unblock Vk as 24 hours is the appropriate length for a contested 3RR. You suggestion of an "indefinite block" in this case is simply outrageous. Sarah777 (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, blocks escalate in length if editors are repeatedly disruptive. I have no reason to believe that most, if any, of the very many previous blocks are "politically motivated". If you believe the block or its length is wrong, you can always ask Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make another unblock request, which will be examined by another administrator. The person to ask to reduce the block would be not I, but the blocking administrator himself, because blocks must not be lifted without consultation with the blocking admin.  Sandstein  07:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe the blocking Admin was any more familiar with the ongoing campaign against Vk than you are. What this illustrates is the daft system we have on Wiki that facilitates "majority" POV over WP:NPOV. Not to mention the raising of American PC notions of "civility" to the status of a religion. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You you have any evidence of this "campaign" Sarah? Have you actually reviewed these 30 odd blocks and determined which of them are "politically motivated" and which are entirely justified? Was the one where he was blocked for using edit summaries to chant pro-IRA slogans "politically motivated". Was the one where he was blocked for threatening others with violence "politically motivated", was the one where he was recruiting people on Irish forums to stack votes to teach "British cunts" a lesson "politically motivated", how about the one when he was editing from sockpuppets? Or perhaps, in this instance, you fully support edit warring to add insulting nicknames to BLPs?

I mean, really, its easy to jump in there and spout some romantic bullshit about being oppressed by the man, but take a close look at what you are actually supporting here. Its embarrassing. Rockpocket 00:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For having taken the time to look at my email and also for your response. I understand why you couldn't help, but the time you took to investigate is appreciated. Cordially--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong is now trying to start an edit war with me in the Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight‎ article, as he reverted my removal of a character name that should not be in that part of the plot summary, he's saying my removal of the character name was original research. So I did not revert his revert and started a discussion on his talk page but he has not answered my question of how was it original research. What do you think about this? Should I revert his revert now? Powergate92Talk 00:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

One revert is not an edit war yet. What you should do is proceed per WP:DR and get the opinion of others, possibly through WP:3O. You should also try to find a reliable source supporting your contention. If there is no source for that plot summary, all of it is original research and should be removed.  Sandstein  06:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you about the plot summary being original research but there was a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard back in June, where it was agreed that a TV show is a reliable source for its own plot summary. As you can see in my edit summary, my source for the info is the episode Kamen Rider Siren. Powergate92Talk 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong has now started an edit war with me in the Power Rangers article, I added a citation needed tag to "Rather than making an English dub of the original, the American production team put together a "new" production with English-speaking actors spliced in with the original Japanese footage in varying ratios. Due to the very Japanese nature of many of the Super Sentai Series' stories and design, the American shows vary detail to appeal to a Western audience. However, they typically dub many of the action sequences featuring the characters in costume and the mecha (referred to as "Zords" in Power Rangers)." as it's original research but Ryulong removed the citation needed tag saying "obvious enough", so I reverted his edit saying "That info is original research as it has no source and it can not be sourced to the show", but he reverted my revert saying "It is something that one uses their common sense to infer". Before I revert his revert I would like to know what you think, is that info original research? Powergate92Talk 01:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know too little about the entire subject matter (animated shows) to evaluate this, and find the topic frankly too silly, to have an opinion about this. My advice is not to engage in reverts about such trivia, but to get a third opinion.  Sandstein  05:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ricesr ctrl

User:Ricest m

Editing The Ricest AZrticle. Sockpuppet report filed but nothing done.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please link to the article and the sock report? Next time, {{userlinks}} links would be more convenient.  Sandstein  09:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Regional Information Center for Science and Technology, and the sockmaster Usertalk:Ricest [[15]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd like a link to the WP:SPI report, please.  Sandstein  09:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Read above we tried the last link goes to a suspected sockpuppet page but for wahatever reason a case wasn't created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ricest this was the closest it came. Not sure why.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This was as close as it came. [[16]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I restarted an invesitagation at [[17]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ricesr ctrl (please provide internal links in this form) is now open, an administrator will soon evaluate it.  Sandstein  10:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Konversation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please restore the Konversation article.

These two reviews from LWN.net [18] and Softpedia [19] meet the reliable sources guidelines and are enough to establish notability per the notability guideline. Both of these results turned up in the first few pages of a basic Google search which further goes to show a lack of due diligence on the part of the nom and the two delete !votes in the AfD. All of the delete !votes were from editors who were directly involved in the larger vindictive/disruptive mass-AfD nomination as documented on AN/I here and amount to WP:JNN arguments. Given how incredibly easy it was to find the two reviews linked above, arguments such as "I can't find significant coverage for this software." simply do not hold any water.

--Tothwolf (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another review from Linuxlinks.com [20] which was part of their 10 of the Best Free Linux IRC Clients [21] series. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied the article to User:Tothwolf/Konversation. You may move it back to main space as soon as you integrate these new sources into the article. The next time, please note such sources during the AfD, if they are indeed that easy to find.  Sandstein  11:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, even with the RSS reader I use to help keep track of things I simply could not keep up with that many active AfDs, TfDs, etc. I doubt this will be the last one I revisit and I just added another reference to ERC (IRC client) which I happened to find when I searched for Konversation. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --Tothwolf (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referred to you by Julian for an issue that needs resolving. Could you check out these links: [22], [23], and [24]. Hammersoft is harassing BQZip01 and in the eyes of BQZip01, and BQZip01 wants this stopped. He isn't on right now, or I would send you the e-mail. BQZip01 is also claiming (rightfully in my own opinion) that Hammersoft is trying to own the discussions and manipulate them. He has requested my help and he really doesn't know where to turn. It also seems to me that Hammersoft is monitoring all his edits, as he is popping up wherever BQZip01 is. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll help if I can, of course, but: (a) after reading these diffs I don't quite understand what the problem is. Two editors disagreeing about a RFC layout? A very brief review of Hammersoft (talk · contribs)'s contributions shows nothing particularly problematic. (b) Who is Julian, and why is he referring you to me? (c) What would you like me to do? Have any WP:DR steps been attempted?  Sandstein  20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[25] –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.  Sandstein  20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll send you the e-mails of what was sent to me. No DR was attempted though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The e-mail does not add much of substance (i.e., no diffs substantiating the allegations in the e-mail) and does not really elucidate the situation. If this is a request to intervene with administrator tools, then the need for such an intervention is not yet clear to me. If this is a request to aid in dispute resolution, then I recommend that BQZip01 begin by following the steps described at WP:DR. In my experience, it also greatly helps if the users just avoid one another for a while. I might be able to offer more advice if the issues raised in the e-mail could be discussed on-wiki, but that's up to BQZip01. I'm not comfortable with using e-mail for Wikipedia purposes and prefer to do everything on-wiki.  Sandstein  22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll alert him right away. Thanks a lot for your help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, In connection with my recent interest in the article on Society, I discovered that Faustnh had contributed to work on the definition. His suggestions were clearly posted on the talk page and he waited until he believed there were no objections before altering the intro (for the better I may say). I was therefore very surprised that you had banned him indefinitely for the changes he made to the subcategories of Technology. In my opinion, this was experimental work by a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. He probably had no idea of the potential damage they could cause. They should of course have been deleted - as they were. I am however rather upset that a non-native English speaker (like yourself?) was banned indefinitely for this offense although he repeated several times on his talk page that he would no longer work on categories. Would it not have been a little bit more encouraging to give him some idea of the extent of banning in the hope that he could return to the flock? I am now in the position where I cannot even discuss his changes on Wikipedia - which is a pity. Best, -Ipigott (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks are not infinite. They last only as long as the problem that caused them. Faustnh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not yet made a request to be unblocked. If he makes one, I am inclined to grant it provided that he shows that he understands the problem and won't engage in similar disruption again, as described at User talk:Faustnh#July 2009. As long as he does not even request to be unblocked, I see no grounds for doing so.  Sandstein  18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein - could you please check out the Talk:Sheldon, Derbyshire page? I believe there are some WP:OUTING issues, and at the very least some WP:BLP violations....I would start cleaning it up myself, but perhaps the words of an admin would carry a stronger message? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the individual has self reverted the threat as listed here and on their talk page here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it. By outing, do you mean the statement that "it is highly likely that the users maxkohanzad and pippie langkous are one and the same person"? That's not WP:OUTING, IMHO, just a speculation about sockpuppetry. Comparing user names is not the same thing as asserting that Pippie Langkous (talk · contribs)'s real name is so-and-so. Private names are personal information, but usernames are not.  Sandstein  18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is a bit long and agitated. Could you please provide the diffs of what you believe are BLP violations? Best,  Sandstein  18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it seemed to suggest that Pippie Langkous (talk · contribs) was insinuating that User: A scanner lightly was the "Mr. Herbert" that she discusses and maligns. Both users seem to be pointing fingers at each other and making various accusations on the talk page, so if nothing else there appears to be a major conflict of interest. Dif where Pippi notes "his integrity is questioned" and alleges that she has a documents to prove it, and again here with threatening to expose a parish member wherein A scanner lightly had previously mentioned being a member of the parish committee. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the paragraph from the talk page and left a BLP warning. Per WP:BLP, making unsourced derogatory assertions about living persons is prohibited everywhere on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, I'm not sure how I ended up so mixed up in the entire debacle. There's certainly trouble a brewin' in the village of Sheldon, Derbyshire! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole dispute is kinda weird...it's between two users in a town of 60 people...wanna bet they know each other IRL? MirrorLockup (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they need to head on over to the Cock & Pullet and hash out their differences over a pint. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:User:Pippie Langkous has inserted an unsourced paragraph regarding another controversy just as she said she would prior to your warning. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I've warned both all three single purpose accounts to drop it. Let's see. If they continue to edit-war in that village article, I may block them both.  Sandstein  20:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, to be a fly on the wall at the next parish council meeting. I'm sure they all know who's who within this particular group....Thanks for all your help, I no longer feel like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dam. (Originally spelled as "dame" by accident, which is much funnier but hardly appropriate).Cheers again, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this article subject even notable?? I've had nagging doubts since I wrote the 3O, but I don't like to start AfDs unless I'd definitely !vote delete... MirrorLockup (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, consensus is that all inhabited settlements are notable.  Sandstein  20:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could have another look at the page please, I'm getting rather bored of the tit-for-tat :( Cheers --A scanner lightly (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to keep the article on an even keel, but seem to have a problem with multiple undo/redos; any help would be appreciated in mediating this --A scanner lightly (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, what would you like me to do? Reverting is never the solution to an editing dispute, see WP:EW and WP:DR.  Sandstein  20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing other than keeping an eye on things as yesterday; discussion regarding this topic doesn't seem to be gong anywhere quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A scanner lightly (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I noticed that you blocked BluefieldWV for edit warring at Anthony Watts page. I don't believe in edit warring, for the simple reason that it's a waste of time. That said, WP:BLP clearly states that it trumps the 3RR policy in this situation:

Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.

A number of editors have finally agreed that this was a very obvious violation of NOR and others have agreed that it failed NPOV and was intended to diminish Watts' credibility.

Thus it seems to me that if editors are going to be blocked where the BLP states clearly that they 3RR doesn't apply, then we need to actually remove that wording from the BLP policy.

What are your thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide internal links to the relevant articles and user talk pages?  Sandstein  08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, User_talk:BluefieldWV and Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger) and here is the BLP/N discussion. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not I who blocked BluefieldWV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I just declined his unblock request. He is free to make another. If you want the block to be lifted, you need to talk to the blocking admin. My views about the block are expressed in the edit declining the unblock request: if content is not an obvious BLP violation, any disagreements about it are to be resolved through discussion (including on appropriate noticeboards), not through edit warring.  Sandstein  08:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you were the blocking admin. Anyhow, I still feel there's a big gap between what was originally intended in the BLP policy, and in what is actually practiced here. I have also been threatened with blocks by administrators for insisting that potential BLP problems stay out of the article until consensus is reached on the BLP dispute. That is, very clearly, what the policy states. And there is no reference anywhere to "obviousness" (unless it's hidden inside a related policy I don't know about). In any case, to me, the dispute that is now resolved was indeed a very obvious BLP violation: text was being added to an article on the basis of support from non-existent statements in a self-published website FAQ. But the point is not to argue over whether or not it was indeed obvious, but merely to point out that what is obvious to the blocking the admin will almost certainly not be obvious to the editor who sees a BLP violation. Finally, I should note that I doubt that any violations of BLP policy are "obvious" to all. If they were obvious, the editor inserting the material would likely be treated as vandalism and quickly banned. So to maintain Wikipedia's credibility, the policy should be changed to match what is actually practiced here. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be a discussion for WP:BLP, I think.  Sandstein  21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just a note re. your unblocking of DaBiGg3tFcUkiNiTaLiaNo (talk · contribs) - I have concerns that, despite this appearing to be a genuine request to change name and behave, I have doubts - due to their first edit being unusual [26], and their demonstated knowledge of templates [27] [28].

I'm not sure if you noticed that Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) had declined the unblock [29], so I just wanted to make sure you were aware.

Prior to the unblock, I'd spoken a little about this in User talk:Nihonjoe#Konbanwa. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Commenting at Nihonjoes's, thanks.  Sandstein  20:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing disgusts me, having read it again. It gives ammo to those who say that Wikipedia is run for the benefit of a favored few. Thank you for throwing some sanity into the mix.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is (or was) certainly a very strange dispute.  Sandstein  12:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I opened an ANI thread here about our little ranter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there.  Sandstein  16:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's starting to snow at the afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. As the nominator, I may not close it, though. Some admin will do it eventually.  Sandstein  16:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gone and gone. (Obviously, I didn't do it; I was once voted "Least likely good-faith editor to be an admin"). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why are you unconvinced? 67.162.133.18 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being unbiased. The level of partisanship was really disgusting. As what I can see a neutral admin, I urge you to review my contribution to the article of contention and tell me if I violated any of the wikipedia guidelines. Because as far as I can see (see also my comment on the talk section), I did not. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the other two users asked for a pardon of their block. One of them has been here since 2005! and had never done anything wrong! His record is (or was) clean till now. The normal procedure would have been a lock on the article, Rfc and Mediation. Not an indefinite block for content dispute. However, if I go to adress this injustice it will be a waste of my time. But you as a neutral person can see the damage this does to wikipedia's image. What is interesting was that another admin tried to keep my block based on "copy right violation" (which I addressed and several admins agreed it was not). The second admin said: "Decline reason: "The block is fully justified by your disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge the problem." None of them gave me a good reason. I might be wrong, but my feelings tell me that they were proxying and etc. This is some serious corruption and I think this is sort of corruption will hurt Wikipedia's long term image much more than anything else. Anyhow, I thank you for your neutrality and that is why I invited you (if you feel like or have the time) to let me know if I had made any mistakes in that article that warranted an indefinite ban. Someone violates a core policy and gets 2 minute and someone just users the talkpage and does not make a main page and gets an indefinite ban. For me that was not logical and since I believe you are neutral, I thought if you have time, you might go through it. Thank you --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should also be grateful if you would review this matter; I do not care to be even hinted as being a proxy or otherwise being involved in a content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are a proxy for anything, LessHeard vanU, but could you review the unblock request at User talk:Xashaiar#Requesting again? He's promised to observe 1RR indefinitely about that Cyrus Cylinder, and I can't see a good reason to keep him blocked now.  Sandstein  06:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Being on UK time I have enacted the above unblock, since I am content with the editors undertaking, rather than wait for us to synchronise. I trust this is agreeable. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked Arad without restriction based on his regret and blocks are not punitive. I have declined Nepaheshgar's request to review the edits in question, no one appointed me a judge in content disputes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a proposal to weaken Russavia's topic ban, subject to some over sight at the ArbCom case Proposed Decisions page here [30]. Since you're the one who originally topic banned him, just letting you know. That's all.radek (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before Russavia's being sucked into (my perception, particularly regarding their Estonia edits) Offliner's and PasswordUsername's attack mentality, I've already observed that Russavia was once focused on being a constructive editor. I have no objection to, for example, Russavia's Australia-Russia relations article. It just needs a few tweaks regarding Whitlam's recognition of USSR sovereignty over the Baltics, later withdrawn. Russavia did state they are content to wait out the topic ban when I offered that under better circumstances I would have assisted in seeing his article content posted during his topic ban. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion about the merits of the topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202#Request for official unblock and have no additional comment at this time. I believe that the proposed decision talk page is not an appropriate forum for a discussion of this matter, since the proposed decision does not mention Russavia and the topic ban is entirely unrelated to that arbitration case.  Sandstein  13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  21:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you even want to get involved in this never ending mess, and I would understand if you chose not to comment, but since you were the one who issued the warning to user Skäpperöd not to file unfounded requests I thought I should let you know about this[[31]] since in my (and not only mine) opinion Skäpperöd ignored or "forgot" about the warning and did file unfounded complaint again. Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but I am not currently active at AE because of what I believe is inadequate support by the ArbCom for the administrators enforcing their decisions.  Sandstein  21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Best.--Jacurek (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Sandestein! May I ask for your help? There is a silly dispute between me and User:Jasepl on where Azerbaijan is - in Europe or in Asia - in Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations. I've checked all wiki sources (and indicated them to Jasepl) syaing Azer is phisically, geographically and politically is in Asia. But my opponent is insisting in fact that Azer is in Europe and deletes/undoes constantly all my revisions. So I do ask you to interfere in it in some way. Danke schon! --Dimitree 23:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Sorry, administrators have no special authority in content disputes. I have warned both of you not to carry out more reverts or you may be blocked. Instead, please pursue dispute resolution and possibly get a third opinion to help get you out of the impasse.  Sandstein  06:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• You warned both, ok. But he has done his revert again. So must I do the same? --Dimitree 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)--Dimitree 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

• May I ask нщг to help me to initiate Talk page or smth like this? I do not know how to stick a label or a special sign on a page in discussion. Thank you! Dimitree 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

• I do not understand what you mean by this.  Sandstein  17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dimitree, you have continued reverting Aeroflot – Russian Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after my warning of 06:37, 26 October 2009. Jasepl has not. Accordingly, I am blocking you for 24 hours. Please do not revert after your block has expired, but pursue dispute resolution instead.  Sandstein  17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something to piss you off? Where the hell is this MfD coming from? This just seems random and Bizarre. Don't tell me you're going to go after User:Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War next. Honestly, why on earth do you feel this page should be deleted? Why do you oppose a write up about a down-stream use of Wikipedia? I've made pages like WP:CATSCAN, a small write up of a Wikipedia tool. I've made WikiProject Transwiki to help encourage people to use Wikipedia content.

This just seems like process wonkery. Would we be having this MfD if it was a project page first, and not a formally article page? Do you think I am lying to you about this never becoming an article page again? -- Ned Scott 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you did not do anything to piss me off and in fact I don't think we've interacted before. I was looking for WP:OUT to answer an OTRS complaint, saw a link to Wikinfo there, wondered why that still was a blue link when I remembered it being deleted, and was surprised to find it moldering untouched in user space. As to why I feel the page should be deleted, I've said so in the MfD. The other pages you made are irrelevant to that question (see WP:WAX). I don't know whether we would be having this MfD under any other circumstances. I don't understand the question about you lying to me.  Sandstein  20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough then. I thought perhaps you took me for one of the people who were recently trying to re-create the article, something I only became aware of from the MfD. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

replied, don't know whether you have it on your watch list. Talk:Districts of Switzerland TrueColour (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein could you give some input here as you were previously involved in the whole Troubles and 1RR. I recall you wouldn't block at AE for a breach of 1RR, thanks BigDunc 22:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember an AE discussion about this matter, but can't find it. If you can, you're free to link to it in the ANI discussion.  Sandstein  22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is it here an admin User:Elonka is again telling editors to go to AE with breaches. BigDunc 23:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As your name is mentioned, [32]--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Constitutional references to God, 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? 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiescat in pace, I, for one, do not appreciate having my recommendation discounted. Isn't there some way of making sure the participants opinions are still current? Powers ^T 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's not your fault that developments made your opinion inapplicable. But it's up to participants to ensure that their comments keep matching the content of the article by revisiting AfDs occasionally.  Sandstein  18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I revisited the AfD frequently, whenever a new comment was posted, but nothing changed my opinion. At what point in the discussion should I have reiterated that my opinion had not changed? Powers ^T 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At any time prior to the closure of the AfD.  Sandstein  18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I would very much like for the image in question to be restored. See for discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/October#Deleted_W-87_image

I would be willing to re-draw the image, but it would not be as good and would not have the history that gives it authenticity. Thank you. HowardMorland (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the image should be restored?  Sandstein  20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of all the publicly available diagrams of nuclear weapon innards, the 1999 Cox Report writers chose this W87 image to represent the generic idea of modern nuclear weapon design. In chapter 2 of the report, they included it in a two-page color spread, bottom left. A much-reduced replica of that spread can be found at:

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch2.html

The Cox Report gave credit to the authors of the image, but did not say if or how permission was obtained for its use. It was a bit ironic for it to appear in a document which condemned the dissemination of nuclear weapon design information. (See Sam Cohen's statement in the link above, which made the drawing a topic of public controversy. I would like to add this controversy to the Cox Report article, which would make the drawing relevant.) By using it, they indicated this was the best available illustration of something that needed to be illustrated graphically.

When it appeared in U S News and World Report, in 1995, this image was the first open-source drawing that showed a spherical secondary in a two-stage thermonuclear weapon. The spherical secondary, first implemented in the early Polaris missiles of the 1960's, had been discussed in the open literature since 1980, when the basic elements of the Teller-Ulam design were declassified after the 1979 Progressive case.

An interesting feature of the drawing is the positioning of the heavier secondary in the narrow end of the re-entry cone, done for aerodynamic stability. Evidently, a key element of the Cox Report's charges that espionage had taken place was a discovery that Chinese scientists had learned that America's latest warhead, the W88, reversed this usual arrangement, and put the heavier secondary in the wide end of the cone, to allow it to be bigger. This fact is discussed in Nuclear_weapon_design#Oralloy_thermonuclear_warheads. The image used there was adapted from a book about Wen Ho Lee, with permission of the authors.

The W87 image makes a useful contrast to that W88 image.

As noted in the discussion, it had been used in three Wikipedia articles before it was removed. I think it was relevant to all three.

A redrawing of the image would lack the history. To my knowledge, no one had complained about the image during the years it was posted and used in Wikipedia articles.

Thanks for taking another look at this. I'm sorry I did not learn about the deletion proposal in time to weigh in on it.

HowardMorland (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, our WP:NFCC #1 state: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose." That means that File:W87 Warhead.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) must be redrawn as a free image (but not close enough to be a derivative work) in order to be illustrate the warhead.

It may only be restored if it is needed in its original form for commentary on the Cox report itself and, per WP:NFCC #8, "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I'm not, so far, convinced that this requirement is met, but it could conceivably be met if your explanations about the significance of the image were made part of the article Cox Report (with the appropriate references). Then the image would be needed to understand the article's commentary about it.  Sandstein  18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: the deletion of content on Max Loong, I'd like to find out what exact issues showed up by Twinkle and how I can avoid future deletion. All texts I entered on 3 July 2009, and edited later on, have been approved by Max Loong personally, as I understand this is a BLP, a biography of a living person. I can, further, not reproduce the warnings with Twinkle in the history. Can you please provide more exact hints as to what could have been reasons regarding this deletion? Your help is very appreciated, thank you! Jboyzh (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You refer to this? This text has been copied from another website, which leads us to assume it is a copyright violation. For us to be able to use it, it must be released under a free licence by the copyright owner, see WP:DCP.  Sandstein  18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, yesterday you deleted the article International Alliance for Mountain Film by Wikipedia:CSD#A7. I’m new to the English Wikipedia and therefore have no experience with the notability guidelines. How can I assert the importance or significance of an organization? In the case of International Alliance for Mountain Film I would have argued, that this is an organizations with members from countries around the world and the only organization, which operates in the specific area of mountain film in that way. Regards, Teilzeittroll (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To assert notability, an article must at least indicate in some way why its subject is important or significant. If you want to recreate it, please verify first that the subject meets our notability guidelines for organizations, WP:ORG. If you have references ready to indicate that it does, I'll restore the article to your user space so that you can improve it. Best,  Sandstein  18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. I am seeing you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh (2nd nomination) and in the summery you state that "SmokeyJoe has provided a link to a published book, with an ISBN, that has the subject as its title." and then state that "The clearly on-topic source provided by SmokeyJoe is not addressed by any other contributor, and neither is the issue of notability or any other inclusion criterium." But from what I see this comment addresses the source provided by SmokeyJoe. I reproduce the comment below:

Samvel Karapetian is an Armenian ultra-nationalist. I provided quotes from the book by Thomas de Waal about Karapetian here: [33] Karapetian is the one who denies Azerbaijani people the right to live in Karabakh and Armenia. Looks like he is the only one who uses the term, and it is his recent invention. Karapetian is not a reliable source due to his strong bias in this subject. The question is, should we have articles on marginal terms that have no historical, geographical or political weight, and are used by 1 person? So far I see no evidence that there ever was a distinct political or geographic entity called Northern Artsakh. Grandmaster 07:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact in the debate regarding reliable sources two of my questions have been left unanswered. So to me you rushed in closing the discussion. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 21:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right; Grandmaster and Serouj (but only they) discussed the merits of that source. That is not enough, however, to make me change my mind and find a consensus to delete in this AfD.  Sandstein  21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your close of this AFD is, to be blunt, simply wrong. The consensus from the discussion was that he met the notability requirements under WP:PROF, and it's perfectly possible to write a short, adequate article reporting his academic affiliation, listing his books (identifying the most frequently used texts), etc. The lack of bio details is a red herring of an issue; his marital history, hobbies, family like, whatever, are generally irrelevant to his notability. His work makes him notable, his work can be properly if briefly written up. Please restore the article and reverse the AFD closing action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please link next time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert B. Mayo. Er, yes, all agree that he's notable per WP:PROF. The question is, are there any reliable sources reporting even the most basic biographical information, such as profession, nationality, age and gender? That's not optional, you know, per WP:BLP and WP:V.  Sandstein  22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the work is notable, and can be verifiably described, that's enough for an article. B. Traven would be deleted under your analysis, and James Tiptree Jr would have been deleted for the first decade of her career as well, despite being one of the most notable sf writers of that time. Profession is, of course, easy to document at [34]. And I don't see anything in BLP or V setting forth the non-"optional" information for articles; could you please point out what you believe I've missed? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the sourcing that's not optional, not the information. Nothing that was in the stub article appeared to be verifiable. If you can write a verifiable draft article about him that says something else than that he's written books that are widely used, I'll restore it.  Sandstein  06:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to delete this based upon the AfD, but could you please usify a copy for me (The one that was deleted on 25 October 2009). Martin451 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?  Sandstein  06:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, You removed a large quote from the article on Michelle Rhee due to what I'm assuming was a complaint. I'd like to restore a clearly fair use quote (say 20-30 words) from that. I thought I'd check in first to be sure there isn't something going on that would prevent it. Hobit (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me, as long as it remains fair use in volume and in the way it is used. From what I understand, our articles mustn't be just a collage of quotations; any quotes we use must be used in the context of our own content.  Sandstein  06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)