User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/August

Please help settle a dispute regarding page numbers when citing long articles and books
Please help settle a dispute at Talk:Evolutionary psychology. There is disagreement about a proposal to allow editors a month to provide page numbers for book and long article citations before the sourced material is removed. The parties have agreed to get help with this dispute. Thanks, Joja  lozzo  03:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed
An arbitration case regarding has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) MickMacNee is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
 * 2) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion Requested- Correct Format
Dear Silverstein,

Hello again. On the discussion page for Marisol Deluna, I would like to share information with other editors to learn about her work and build the article page. (She is a fashion designer with a focus on non-profit organizations in a stylish manner, seemingly not traditional runway or Hollywood motivated so it can be a bit more tricky to locate information) At the moment, my latest entries have been deleted. If it was seen as "Promotional", I understand this. Merely, I am trying to assist in building the article by adding links and lists I located online. I had originally posted a list with 50 projects. I edited my original list into the following two. Originally nor now have I included links from her company website or facebook yet did suggest that one could learn from both.


 * Hi. Sorry, I do not understand what you suggest. Do you want to simply add these lists of links to the article? That's not how we write articles. We have a rule according to which we are not mainly for linking to elsewhere, see WP:NOTDIR.  Sandstein   18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, no. Apologies. I wanted to add some of these links to the discussion page not the article. As a Wiki editor, may I have these on my page and make a notation on the Deluna page to assist other editors? Simply trying to follow rules. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I read WP:NOTDIR. Thank you as much of it made sense to me. I went ahead and added the lists mentioned on my discussion page. If this goes against the rules of Wikipedia, please advise. So sorry for the confusion. Simply trying to grow a subject page with no conflict. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

New written sources for deleted article Konversation
I stumbled across new written sources for the deleted article about the Konversation client which I think (I'm not really in-depth experienced with WP:N) could be in detail enough to satisfy the notability requirements (thus, the article should be probably undeleted). If you think a deletion review or something else should be done on behalf of me now, feel free to suggest further action - I simply decided to bring this up directly to you first, since the deletion review page seemed to suggest that (bringing it to the deleting admin first).

Here are the written sources, obtained through the google books search:

"Jetzt lerne ich openSUSE 10.3" (de) http://books.google.com/books?id=wt1kydI_ePEC&pg=PA320&dq=konversation+kde&hl=en&ei=nig8TtjJFMOXOpKMydMH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=konversation%20kde&f=false

"Fedora 13 User Guide" (en) http://books.google.com/books?id=1cN5SNQzWd0C&pg=PA71&dq=konversation+kde&hl=en&ei=uyc8TvGcKMHt-gbmqYGbAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

"Das offizielle Ubuntu Buch" (de) http://books.google.com/books?id=NbEvUOC-e_wC&pg=PA298&dq=konversation+IRC&hl=en&ei=hSc8ToryMsSBOsSGtdMH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=konversation%20IRC&f=false

I am *not* entirely familiar with any of the books, but those seem to be independent from the Konversation developers (at least the first and the third, not sure who exactly is asked for texts for the second) and also have longer sections on the client. Yarcanox (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite my believing so, it isn't currently deleted. Either google mislead me and I just didn't notice at all (then sorry for that), or it was undeleted just as of now. Sorry for the babble then. Yarcanox (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee, ArbCom, &c.
There are several things I would like to say about this whole sorry affair. A post-mortem really isn't my idea of fun, either, but I want you to understand some of my thoughts and feelings on this and more generally. First of all, I owe you an apology for some of the things I have said in anger. While some of them reflect sincerely held opinions and frankly bitterness, many of those comments were unnecessarily heated and acrimonious, for which I apologise.

This is as good-a-place as any to start. My understanding of what happened then was that somebody brought a largely frivolous complaint to ANI. After the thread largely died out, with no consensus for any admin action, you made your first edit to it. You made vague assertions to Mick's block log and raised nothing new, then stated that you would indefinitely block him unless anybody had a "compelling reason" not to. You did so about nine hours later, with only one further comment. I think Mick commented at the time that you appeared to have made the decision to block him just before going to bed and then made blocking him the first thing to do the next day.
 * Last November

After much drama, Scott eventually unblocked him. You berated him at ANI for doing so without your permission, then you threatened to take him to ArbCom, which you subsequently did. Your reaction is not, to me, that of somebody who could respond dispassionately to situations involving Scott and/or Mick in the future

While this whole case was farce and proved that ArbCom was all but useless at dispute resolution, this case is part of a pattern. This time, you entered an AN thread and ordered Ludwigs to give you a reason not to block him. With no further response from him, you blocked him. When Dreadstar unblocked him (of course improperly, given that you marked it as an AE block), you took him straight to ArbCom. During the case, you were presented with a lot of evidence that the block in question was unwise and that it's not the first time you've made such a questionable block.
 * AESH

This term has been used repeatedly during AESH and the MMN case. You are, by far, the most territorial admin I have ever come across. You seem to take great offence when your action are reverted without your permission, but the simple fact is that the wiki would grind to a halt if we had to stop and discuss every possible unblock, and even in the discussions that I've witnessed, you've never come across as being amenable to unblocking. You seem to be possessed by an unshakeable belief that you are right and, some might say, the final arbiter of what is right and wrong (cf. Ludwigs).
 * Territoriality

I would surmise that the reason you so often find your actions reversed without discussion is because many admins would rather face your wrath than waste their time in deadlocked discussions over an unblock. I never did understand why you think the first admin's judgement is beyond reproach and thus an admin reversing his action must obtain consensus. I find it ludicrous, myself. As I've said before: if you want to make it a requirement to obtain consensus before unblocking, make it one to obtain consensus before blocking in the first place. It's much harder to justify a reversal of a block placed by prior consensus than one made by a single admin without a consensus.

This started out as a fairly normal case. It probably would have taken a month, but it was almost certain that Mick would be facing some sort of ban in the end. Then he got himself into an edit war to remove what was a blatant personal attack. He was blocked for 72 hours for the edit war and then all hell broke loose. You weighed in and bumped the block up to an indef, based on a comment made hours ago, that he would continue to remove the attack one his block expired. First, anybody who has ever read Mick's talk page after he's been blocked (as I assume you did last November) knows that he tends (tended, I suppose) to use it to let off steam and make a lot of colourful remarks. Second, the threat that you used to justify your action was moot, because the attack had been removed by its author hours earlier. There was no rhyme or reason for this extension of the block. Even assuming the utmost good faith, it looks like it was extraordinarily poorly thought out. But I've seen the way you conduct yourself, and I think you're much more deliberate with your admin actions than to make a block so hastily. Making no assumption of faith whatsoever, it looks to an observer like you were attempting to settle the score after last November. Regardless of your motives, blocking Mick after you made such a fuss over his unblock last November, during an active arbitration case that was heading towards a ban, and during the same case from which your name had only just been removed as a party looks like incredibly poor judgement. I won't insinuate that you had yourself removed specifically to make that block, because you denied it and I respect you enough that I don't think you'd lie to somebody's face (or whatever the Internet equivalent is). You then announced that this was supposed to be some sort of stable, community restriction—that's simply not your decision to make, especially in the middle of an ongoing arbitration case.
 * The just-concluded case

I restored the original duration of the block, pointing out that the reason for your indef was moot. I could have just entered "WP:INVOLVED" in the summary, but avoided doing so because that is effectively a black mark on the record of the admin whose action is being reversed. You then showed up at my talk page and I feel you tried to bully me into reversing my action by threatening to have me added as a party to the case. When I was added to the case, I tired to conduct an honourable defence, but you bombarded me with allegations. You accused me of wheel-warring (which is just factually incorrect, as was pointed out by several other people), and then went on to make it unnecessarily personal. You accused me of nepotism towards Mick—that's bollocks, the guy is a pain in the arse and I've told him so on more than one occasion; however, he does make useful comments, and I had previously tried to get him to channel his energies into making those useful comments without the swearing, the personal attacks, and the wall of text. I've long held that part of the problem is that people are too busy getting het up because he used the word "fuck" to focus on the substance of his comment (which is as much his fault as it is that of the person getting het up). You pointed out several AfDs where we've shared opinions (pick two editors with 80,000 edits between them at random, 8 times out of ten, if not more, you'll find they've shared an opinion somewhere), which simply happens to be because Mick and I (and, in opposition, Mjroots) have strong opinions on the notability of light aircraft that fall out of the sky and result in very few injuries and no long-term impact; you'll find another dozen at least where only one of us has commented.

(break for readability) Not content with these allegations—which I would say you appeared to make on a whim, but I don't think you do anything on a whim, and which would be ample grounds for desysopping if they were true—you went on to make more allegations, under the header "HJ Mitchell always undoes blocks without prior attempts at discussion". Why not just "HJ is a shitty admin who couldn't find a mop if it were shove up his arse"? In that section, you'd obviously made a cursory examination of my log and little else. The majority of those unblocks were uncontroversial, a few were made largely on the provisions of WP:ROPE, the rest were made after consultation with other admins (and one CU) with the exception of SCG01, which was the result of a discussion between myself, SCG01, the blocking admin, and Jimbo Wales. You also tossed in the reference to SCG01's subsequent block (which as far as I know, was over an entirely different matter) as if I could somehow have known that ArbCom were going to ban him without elaboration a few days later and was wilfully defying the committee's yet-to-be-expressed will.

All this hurt. A lot. Because I have gone out of my way in the past to defend you, or when criticising you, to offset it with comments about the good that you've done. I even received a lot of emails from Wikipedians ranging from permablocked to respected administrators that were less than flattering of you, and I defended you. But none of that gave you pause for thought, even for a second, before plunging the knife in. That's where most of my present resentment of you comes from and if I'm honest, it's made me extremely bitter.

I apologise for the length of this, but I would like you to read it and, if possible, understand it because, until recently, I respected you. I have always liked to think of myself as being an honourable guy and not only do I feel you have acted dishonourably throughout this debacle, but you've made me question the merits of being honourable.

However, I am grateful for your compromise which allowed us to get on with our lives—that was honourable, and probably more honourable than I would have been under similar circumstances.

— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation and your apology. In turn, I apologize for hurting your feelings with my arbitration submission, which was not my intention. I will probably have time to read what you wrote more thoroughly and respond to it this evening. It seems we both approached this issue to some extent with mistaken assumptions about each other's motives, and because of the confrontative context of the ongoing case we never had an opportunity to clear this up. I welcome being able to do this now, and I hope that we can to some degree remedy our current conflict.  Sandstein   06:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, here are my thoughts about what you wrote, roughly in order. (I will not address what I think is your rather too-positive, at times apologetic interpretation of MickMacNee's actions in the above narrative, as the ArbCom findings are rather clear about the merits of his behavior and there's no point in rehashing that.)

You interpret my second block of MickMacNee as a sign of a grudge on my part. It will not surprise you to hear that I believe that this interpretation is wrong. From what I remember, I noticed him misbehaving one day (which is the first time I remember ever noticing him at all) looked at his contributions and humongous block log, thought "why is this clearly maladjusted person still here?" and indef-blocked him as I would any other repeat vandal. We can evidently disagree about whether that was a good decision or not on the merits, but I believed that most uninvolved observers would in retrospect agree that it was a good decision, based on the ANI comments and several negative admin responses to his abusive unblock requests, and of course the fact that he has now been indefinitely banned for repeating the very same conduct. When he was then unblocked by Scott MacDonald, I was not angry at MickMacNee. To me he was and is still one among many repeatedly disruptive persons who are normally indef-blocked every day without fuss, and there's no point in working up any personal feelings about the random vandals and other troublemakers one routinely blocks (and I assume that you too have no particular feelings about the many people you have blocked, including repeatedly.) And of course it's not his own fault that he was unblocked. Who I was angry with was Scott MacDonald, both for what I consider was enabling a disruptive user to continue disrupting (as he indeed did), and for acting most uncollegially (as I will explain in a moment). So when I noticed MickMacNee misbehaving again promptly after I got out of an arbitration case that I had nothing to do with, because I was nowhere near the events that triggered it, I thought: ok, ArbCom will probably take a broader look at the whole case and make a more comprehensive decision about the whole situation, including the strange drama about the contributor represented by the delta symbol, but right there right now a block is what I as an admin can do to stop MickMacNee from misbehaving (including after the then-72h block expires) until such time as ArbCom have reached a conclusion. And who knows, maybe the community will agree with me, endorse the block as a ban, and ArbCom can close the case as moot if they want to. Or maybe the community or ArbCom will disagree and undo my block, and then at least I did what I could to help in the short run. So, from my point of view, I did not act out of a grudge against MickMacNee (who as I said is Joe Random Vandal to me, with whom having grudges is pointless), and I did not act out of a grudge against Scott MacDonald (who was in no way involved in or even aware of that second incident as far as I know), but simply because I thought that here was something that I could do to help the project work better. (The same applies mutatis mutandis to the Ludwigs2 case and the second MickMacNee block.)

You may believe this or not, but my point is this. Assumptions of intent can be faulty. That's after all the core idea behind WP:AGF. You say that it hurt you that I interpreted your previous interactions with MickMacNee as indications of nepotism on your part (because I could not imagine what else might have motivated you to unblock an actively disrupting user), and your lack of interaction with the blockers prior to your recent unblocks as signs of a habitually callous and careless attitude to unblocks on your part. If I am wrong to draw these conclusions about your motives for unblocking MickMacNee from these facts – and I am willing to assume good faith on your part and believe your assertion that I am mistaken in these assumptions about you – then maybe you were also wrong in the first place to infer anything about my motives from the fact that I blocked MickMacNee a second time.

And you know what? Even if we think that we are certain that our colleagues have questionable motives for whatever they do (as you have assumed about me in this case, and I about you), I believe we should not judge their actions on their perceived motives, but on whether they are effectively beneficial to the project or not. The encyclopedia is what we're here for, after all, not our reputation or grudges. People may do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for the right reason, and in each case the outcome should matter more than the reasons.

You also think that I am too territorial about blocks I make. I believe you are mistaken about this too. It's not about the blocks as such, it's about how I think colleagues should interact with each other. Allow me to elaborate: I understand that I am fallible as much as the next person. I am acutely aware that this is not a hierarchical project and that everything eventually comes down to consensus. I don't think that in such an environment there is something like an objectively "good" or "bad" block, but merely blocks which more or less people think are justified. But I acknowledge that, because I am just as fallible as somebody else, I will at times make blocks that many people disagree with: either because I misunderstood something about the situation, or because I made an error in my considerations, or because I consider the risk of repeated disruption higher than others estimate the risk of losing useful contributions from the blocked user. So I think it is perfectly reasonable for others to criticize my blocks. And if they convince me, or if they convince many others that my block was not useful, I will not only agree to have it undone, but will do so myself.

But what I strongly believe in and insist on is collegial conduct among contributors and especially admins. Here's why. Imagine that you are a cop issuing a traffic ticket to a driver, lecturing him about why what he did was wrong. (Yes, admins aren't cops, but there are enough functional similarities for the comparison to be valid.) Then as you do this another cop drives up, takes a look at the driver's car, comes over and takes the ticket out of your hand, tearing it up as he says to the driver: "Sorry, sir, my buddy here is completely wrong, I cancel your ticket, have a nice day." That would be completely wrong on several levels.
 * First, a cop (or, here, admin) is chosen to take on certain responsibilities, including ticketing (blocking) people. Other cops might disagree with any individual ticket, but it is not their job to substitute their judgment for their colleague's, if only because of the fact that if an individual cop can be wrong in issuing a ticket, another individual cop can be just as wrong to cancel it. This is why there are processes other than unilateral action by a colleague to contest tickets or blocks: either hierarchical intervention by a superior (not applicable in Wikipedia), the courts (ArbCom) or public discussion and media pressure (here, unblock request reviews and community discussions).
 * Second, it is simply arrogant and disrespectful, telling the other in effect: "I value your judgment so little and my own so highly that I am totally certain that I am right and you are wrong, and I am telling so to everybody". This attitude is contrary to the spirit of collegiality needed among admins.
 * Third, it promotes social gaming and favoritism. If every admin can (and more importantly, does) so readily veto any other admin action, admins are much less likely to take actions that are needed in the view of most but are unpopular among even a few (such as blocking disruptive established editors, or editors who are friends with admins, or other admins). Because each little group has veto power over all others, there is a chilling effect against potentially necessary actions, and contentious editors are enticed to cozy up to admins in order to seek their protection. It is finally contrary to the Wikipedia principle of consensus, because it requires de facto unanimity among admins for any action to stick, rather than consensus among all editors, which is explicitly not unanimity. The Poles once had this sort of veto in a real-life constitution (see Liberum veto) and it did not work out well.

So even if you do not agree with this view - if you think that it is not shockingly rude as well as undisciplined to simply undo an admin action one disagrees with as easily as one would undo an article edit - I hope that you at least understand why I am very strongly objecting as a matter of principle to undiscussed reversals of my (or any other's!) admin actions, to the point of taking them to arbitration, even while I do not object to discussed and preferably consensual reversals of my blocks. I treat other admins with a minimum of collegial deference, even where I disagree with them, and expect them to do likewise. That's not only good manners, it's policy.

Finally, you note that you previously defended me or my actions. I appreciate this (although I was not actively aware of it) but it does not matter to me. I simply do not care for the social aspects of Wikipedia – the "role-playing" – the way you do (or I assume you do, because you have repeatedly mentioned that your reputation is important to you, and because you appear to assume that I should not have criticized you so harshly because of what you say was your previous support for actions by me). I am here because I value the goals of this project and I want to help it succeed, including if necessary by removing contributors who repeatedly disrupt it. I do not see this as a game in which reputations are made or lost, but as a project to write an encyclopedia, and so I do not give my reputation, or that of others, much consideration. If given the opportunity, I will support you in the future where I agree with you based what is good for the project and criticize you where I think you are mistaken (as, I believe, here), and I would have followed the same general approach even if we had not had this disagreement. It's natural to want to be liked, and to be more vocal or proactive with support for people one likes, but mere personal preferences must not distract us from our primary responsibility to the good functioning of the project, which we assumed when we stood for administrator. (And yes, I am aware that one can easily delude oneself by rationalizing one's preferences as being required for the greater good. But that is why we have discussions. You can convince me that I'm wrong if you tell me why, allow me to respond and get several other respected contributors to agree with you. But you will rarely so convince me if you simply assert that you are right and undo me without talking to me or others.)

My suggestion for a lesson to take away from this case for both of us, then, is the following:
 * We should not readily draw negative inferences about another administrator's motives based on what they do. I did this when speculating about your motives, as you did by speculating about mine. It's the practice of assuming good faith, really.
 * Administrators may and should criticize the merits of one another's actions as strongly as they think is needed, but should not unilaterally and without discussion undo each other's actions, as this is generally counterproductive.
 * Admins should not block editors who are involved in active arbitration cases? I'm not sure about this, as we both did it in this case for reasons that we considered valid, and even ArbCom only said that only parties may not block parties, not that others may not block parties. And I think we both agree that ArbCom is pretty poor at keeping order or taking timely action in its own cases, even if they got the outcome right in this case after a ridiculously long time.

Regards,  Sandstein   22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Roman amphitheatre
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Organizing the general sanctions
Hello Sandstein. At WT:General sanctions I see you had proposed an idea of making community sanctions easier to link to. For what it's worth, I think this deserves further study. I notice also that User:The Wordsmith/Community sanctions proposed a better way of organizing the sanctions. His proposal does not seem to have advanced since 2010. Let me know if you still have an interest in this. I came to this issue because I noticed that there is no template similar to ARBPIA for the abortion articles which would clearly announce the 1RR restriction. It is desirable that such a template be available to place on the talk pages of abortion-related articles that have frequent wars. I also have the idea that WP:AE might serve as a place to review possible violations of General sanctions, but that's another topic. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for contacting me, but I am generally very disenchanted right now with the whole field of dispute resolution / conduct enforcement, because I think there is too much leeway in our system for undisciplined administrators to disrupt enforcement for personal reasons or on a whim, and insufficient resolution among the admin and general community to remedy this. So I've largely withdrawn from this whole sector of admin activity as not worth my time, but I wish you well with any efforts you intend to make in this field, and will lend my voice in support if needed.  Sandstein   22:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Repropose deletion for Marisol Deluna page
Hello - since you were the administrator to close the deletion review for Marisol Deluna, I am contacting you to see about reopening this discussion. I have been working to try to verify the few sources that existed on the page, and found nearly all of them to violate wikipedia guidelines in numbers of respects (non-notability, inaccuracy, unverifiable, etc). The subject of the article herself has been commenting (on page and on my talk), and is likely using a sock as well. Possible meat puppet user "Mr. Brown" is also reverting page to much earlier non-consensus version (and accusing me of being a sock, which is just silly). More eyes on the page might help, and another discussion in light of recent research, talk record, and edits.Tao2911 (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Silverstein, Hello again. "Tao" has been "working" to reduced the existing page to one sentence and one reference- Stating in his own concentrated short edit history on this subject: "removing last niblet of unsourced material".

He dismissed the New York Times as a "Promotional" reference is unmerited. "Tao" stated "removed self-promotional citation (wedding announcement" To be clear, you do not pay to be profiled, you are asked and interviewed. (Atleast in 1999 before the internet was commonly used)  I did not add her most basic information, yet it has been erased.  I would like it included so I can tell a more complete story.  When I asked "Tao" to allow this, he told me "No" and refers to me as "Marisol" due to my interest in her work.  He started an "IP" search to counter one that he is involved with as mentioned in his citing.  I welcome the investigation yet please do not continue referring to me as "Grandma Beth".

You know I have been in good faith adding to this article since the recent AFD alongside other editors, as I have asked you several questions along the way. We have never claimed she was a fashion luminary, yet she does meet basic Wikipedia notability. Plain and simple, "Tao" wants this inclusion deleted and that will likely happen if taken to another AFD. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * as if to prove my point in a requested sockpuppet investigation, E123 here uses the same argument in virtually the same terms as self-proclaimed Marisol Deluna on disputed talk page (or my own - they've both been commenting on each, in virtually indistinguishable voices, try as e123 might in guise as kindly grandmother just obsessed with the minute biographical particulars of one Latina scarf maker in NYC.)Tao2911 (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I voiced her commentary here and that of others when approaching this Administrator. An investigation cleared you but not the editor who has made my editing very difficult through sock puppetry- In particularly on the initial AFD. You tried to link me and user "Mr. Brown" and that came out clear. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tao2911#%7Cof

You have been condescending to editors that do not agree with you, Mr. Brown on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ElizabethCB123 and now referring to Mrs. Deluna as simply "One Latina Scarf Maker In NYC."? As for me, don't underestimate Grandmothers. Aside from calling me names, you make comments that I am not capable of reading, understanding or collecting my own thoughts. Be kind. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose that you and brown are the same person. He is clearly a different user - but suspicions remain as to some kind of collusion. But whatever. i still suspect you and deluna are the same person, and in any case, the issue is the page. There shouldn't be one. Onward and upward.Tao2911 (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Silverstein,

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents was brought on by four independent editors as of August 12, 2011. He has been less than civil or fair minded to me and others on the Marisol Deluna page and will delete this article if brought to another AFD. He has also requested another AFD to another Administrator due to his lack of an immediate response from you. It seems as if the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna is a debate in and of itself. The page has grown by a more seasoned and fearless editor and will continue to do so if allowed to remain. Thank you in advance for your assistance. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not currently active in dispute resolution, so you two will need to proceed as described on WP:DR to resolve your complicated problems. In general, anybody can resubmit an article to AfD if they can present in good faith a valid argument for deletion, but I've no opinion about whether that's the case here.  Sandstein   06:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ECB123 has been blocked for creating a number of socks, and those socks have been blocked and flagged. Reviewing admin also believes there is likely collusion with meat puppets. The main issue is non-notability, and deleting the page. I will renominate. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD
You relisted an afd a while ago and it has now had a non admin closure which doesn't look right. From what I can tell the institute has trivial mentions in reliable publications so it isn't notable. But i'm not sure, could you have a look? Regards. Articles for deletion/Monmouth University Polling Institute Szzuk (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, notability is a matter of opinion, but at any rate there is no consensus to delete in that discussion, so I cannot in good conscience overturn the closure. Sorry.  Sandstein   07:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is ok. I think it would be no consensus as a close really, the closer appeared to be coming to their own conclusion rather than interpreting consensus, so its best to get another opinion on the close. But as you say its not a delete either. Regards. Szzuk (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks!  Sandstein   05:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Arid Uka Biography
I have a biography of Arid Uka, the predator of the Frankfurt Airport shooting in March 2nd, 2011. Is it okay to merge to a new page instead of redirect or write his biography on the main page. Please reply to my talk page as soon as possible. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Routerone
Would you please take a look at the most recent discussion at User talk:Routerone. It appears to me he has broken his zero revert agreement - and his edit summary "(cleanup, tidy and adjust)" is a bit misleading - adjust seems to mean delete some material and change other material. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the misleading summary, but what is the edit a revert of?  Sandstein   14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look at the discussion on his talk page, he seems to have reverted text by John Foxe (and added a template to an apparent sock of his). Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me with which edit John Foxe added the text that Routerone removed with his edit? I don't readily see it.  Sandstein   16:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See . And the blocking Admin reverted him with an edit summary saying it was a violation of his zero revert restriction. Dougweller (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that the edit is a revert insofar as it removes the text "paid to search for treasure with a seer stone" added by John Foxe a month earlier. At any rate, Routerone has now been blocked indefinitely by another admin for this.  Sandstein   22:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So I see, thanks and sorry to bother you. I've been involved too much with him to have blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable
Dude? Why did you close it is as redirect? Only one person !voted for its deletion; it probably should have been closed as no consensus. I offered thorough explanations as to why the article already passes WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Your condition of "coverage in reliable sources" has already been met, as noted in the comments. Furthermore, since the show airs in 16 days, it makes a major headache for me and the rest of the community to recreate the article after it being gone for such a short time.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you were the only person who wanted to retain the article, while the three other contributors wanted to delete and/or redirect it. So a redirect is the least bad outcome of this discussion from your point of view. I suggest that you wait until it airs, recreate the article in userspace with any new third-party coverage it obtains, and then ask WP:DRV for consensus to restore it.  Sandstein   15:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment
Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2, you may be interested in commenting at. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Adminsoft Accounts page
I hope the decision can be reversed for the reasons already given within the discussion by myself. The sabotage of the article has occurred due to the personalised discrediting attacks and deletions by one or two persistent editors. The false comments hinging on people's reputations have been refuted, and the creator of the software also has gone out of length to point out the balancing points in favour of keeping the article. It creates an imbalance in the selection of articles due to some editor's malice attitudes while the lesser quality and poorer references are accepted in the same category (ref: TurboCash), even by these editors! I don't know how the process works, but I hope it is flexible. Thanks.Y C Narker (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean Articles for deletion/Adminsoft Accounts? As closing administrator, my job is to determine whether the discussion shows a consensus for the deletion of the article. I have found that this is the case here, as contributions that reflect a conflict of interest are normally not taken into account, and the arguments you made did not convince anybody else. What you say now does not convince me that I erred in this assessment, particularly because I cannot see any indication of malicious or otherwise disruptive conduct in that discussion.  Sandstein   16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)