User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/January

Thanks
Thanks for stepping in with Laternix and Nableezy. The holidays have been keeping me pretty busy the past couple of days. I hope yours are treating you well. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and a good New Year to you as well!  Sandstein   10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hogmanay greeting

 * Thanks!  Sandstein   10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy
To you as well!  Sandstein  10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pbl1998 block
I believe you are in error with your judgement on this users unblock request. The Wokingrocks sock was used by user Willrocks10, Pbl1998's supposed sock master. So Pbl has not admitted to using this unless he is a sock himself, which is a circular argument if used to support him being a sock. In the same vein, Pbl1998 had not made significant disruptive edits, that was all done by Willrocks10, who was blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing, and who is ironically now free to edit again after a 7 day block for being a sock master. So again, Pbl1998 has only disruptively edited if he is actually a sock, so that argument cannot be used to show he is a sock as it's self referential. I really think an injustice has been done here. If nothing else, the Pbl1998 account predates his supposed master, so surely the block should be the other way round. It seems bizare to me that as a community we've indef blocked an inexperienced but relatively inoffensive user, while leaving the disruptive editor who repeatedly ignored policy and consensus free to edit.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is at any rate too much coordination of edits going on, via meat- or sockpuppets, and the edits of Pbl1998 are of so low a quality, that I have no compelling reason to draw the checkusers' confirmation of identity into question.  Sandstein   22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit odd that the relavent policy pages on sock puppet all make a big deal about how behaviour is the only true way to determine a puppet, but repeatedly this block has been upheld based primarily on the checkuser result. As I've pointed out in several places, from what I have seen these are two friends at school who edit together in the school library, which explains both the common IP and time of edits (i.e. lunch break, etc). This is obvious from the edits and comments they have made over the last month, but you need to wade through a months worth of editing on multiple articles to see this. I only saw it because I was watching all those articles at the time, and despite initially thinking PBL might be a sock, it became apparent over time that he clearly wasn't, as he argued and edit warred with Willrocks. Willrocks has consistently flown head long aginast both policy and consensus in ways that were obviously not going to work if you know anything about wikipedia. The idea that he could be so sophisticated in using a sock while so ignorant in general editing doesnt add up. What's even more bizare is that the supposed third sock, Jargonia, only ever edited to oppose Willrocks10 in AfD, so it would be counter productive to have as a sock, in fact it would make the entire exercise pointless as PBL and Jargonia cancel each other out in votes. Again if you look at the edit histories, Jargonia appears to be a third student, not a freind of these two, who only came on to wikipedia to cause mischief with thier work. If Jargonia is not a sock but checkuser suggests they are, that throws the whole thing into doubt. If the issue is of meat puppets then surely Willrocks should be the blocked account, as he was created later. Although both accounts were created and made edits long before any AfD appeared. WP:MEAT also doesn't appear to mandate indef blocking for meat puppets, but rather that they be treated as a single entity for voting purposes. With regards quality, Willrocks10s contributions are also of much lower quality than PBL, being often actively against policy and disruptive. If you look through the repeatedly blanked talk page of Willrocks it is full of warnings, whereas PBL is actually pretty clean. Not to mention, neither has been bad enough to warrant an indef block. PBL's content might not have been notable enough, I AfD'd one myself and have voted in several others, but he is keen and just needs to learn. If you accept he isn't a sock of Willrocks then indef blocking him for making common newbie errors seems a particularly extreme example of biting the newcomers. There is no love lost between me and Willrocks, it was me who put him into SPI in the first place as the Wokingrocks account was a blatantly obvious sock (WP:DUCK, never mind checkuser), previously I reported him to 3RR for edit waring, which led to a block, and he considers me to be wiki-stalking him as I've voted delete in various AfDs for his articles. Frankly I'd be more than happy to see him deep sixed out of wikipedia permanently, but despite all that I honestly believe that PBL1998 is not a sock, and also could make some useful contributions once he gets a bit more experience under his belt. Thanks in advance for your time in considering this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, WP:TLDR. PBL1998 needs to convince the checkusers in order to be unblocked. Any problems with Wokingrocks/Willrocks should be addressed via WP:DR.  Sandstein   11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok short version. 1. Socks are supposed to be judged on behaviour not just checkuser. Having watched the pair of them edit on multiple articles for over a month its clear they are seperate people. What checkuser is seeing is two people at the same school 2. The suggestion they might be meat puppets could be argued, but the penalty for that is not an indef block. 3. Neither is an indef block a reasonable sanction for poor quality editing by a new user.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you need to convince the blocking checkuser about that, not me. I will not override their decision in this case. Checkusers do take behavior into account, not only technical evidence.  Sandstein   15:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought checkuser was a process not a user, by blocking checkuser do you mean the admin who put on the block in the first place? Thanks,--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Checkuser is a tool, but also shorthand to describe the users who have access to it. The checkusers who confirmed the account identity are Jpgordon and MuZemike; the blocking admin was HelloAnnyong. It is they who you need to convince.  Sandstein   15:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So rather than running around in circles, I figured I'd post here so we can put an end to this. I initially blocked Pbl1988 and Jargonia as confirmed socks, but I think that was a false positive in the CU. After receiving a few emails from Jargonia, and looking at the evidence, I've unblocked that account (and I hope I don't end up regretting it.) As to Pbl1988, well, I don't want to step on any toes, and I would certainly not unilaterally override a denied unblock request. But PaintedOne has agreed to mentor/keep an eye on them, and I guess if that editor is willing to agree to it as well, then I could support an unblock. But I would want Sandstein's blessing on this as well, hence why I'm posting here. I will also admit to feeling ambivalent about this, as none of these editors have any particularly good contributions, but I suppose we have to assume some good faith. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to an unblock if you believe the checkuser's determination was false, but I recommend to discuss it with the checkuser first. My unblock decline was not because I am positive that there was socking, but because I am not certain enough that there was not to override a checkuser determination, and also because the blocked account's contributions show a lack of basic writing competence, so it's not as though we stand to lose much if they remain blocked.  Sandstein   18:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I re-checked again, and this is what I found:


 * Jargonia, Pbl1998, and Willrocks10 have, at least one point, used the same IP and same user agents with definite overlap. The WHOIS from that IP is the South East Grid For Learning (Surrey).

I think that was why I concluded what I concluded. I may have forgotten to look up the WHOIS information on the IP, because when I looked at the other IPs that were involved, they were all from commercial ISPs. So, it's possible that they were all messing around in a computer lab or something. Take the appropriate actions needed, and I apologize for (another) serious fuck-up. –MuZemike 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Sounds to me like unblocking is probably the right move, then. Thoughts? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Same opinion here. If there isn't convincing evidence that they are the same person, they should be unblocked IMO. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, without a checkuser positive this does seem like a bunch of kids in a school computer lab. is an obvious sock- or meatpuppet of one of them, though, and should remain blocked.   Sandstein   00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed wholly on Wokingrocks. And I've unblocked Pbl1998. Thanks again for helping me with this case. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your time on this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lingua Franca Nova
Sandstein

Re the Lingua Franca Nova deletion discussion, I note that you state the decision reached was 'No consensus'. What does this mean exactly?

Will the item be deleted or not?

Thank you

--Guido Crufio (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It will not be deleted as a result of that discussion.  Sandstein   11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

--Guido Crufio (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nemrud
Dear Sandstein,

This is Mert Gocay, the founder and the leading member of the Turkish music group Nemrud. I would like to respond to the discussion on the possible deletion of Nemrud's page (which had been prepared by a devoted fan of the Group) from Wikipedia.

Nemrud is a Turkish progressive rock band which made its first album very recently in 2010 under Lirik muzik label.Nemrud has gone beyond the Turkish standard rock or popular line-chorus structure songs and pushed the technical and composition limits of rock music. In a few weeks Journey of the shaman sold out in Turkey; following the domestic success, world wide well known progressive rock label Musea Records approached the band and released the album in December 2010.

Please kindly note that the band actually exists (contrary to the comments published on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nemrud), and the Group is currently preparing for a few concerts (as well as their second album). More info about our group can be found at the following websites:

- myspace/nemrudmusic - musea records.com - nemrudband.com

here are some evidences of album selling websites: - itunes http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/journey-of-the-shaman/id405196378 -amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Shaman-Nemrud/dp/B004GAISKO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294324234&sr=8-2 - cduniverse http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8432230

To my understanding there has been a misunderstanding (or a false connection) between the historical/touristic region/place Nemrut in Turkey with the name of our Group. The name of our Group is inspired from Nemrut, however, there should be no direct connection between Nemrud and Nemrut in Wikipedia. I would hence like yourselves to confirm that Nemrud's page should be staying on Wikipedia on the back of the above reasons.

Thank you. Kind regards,

Mert Gocay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.201.3 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. You need to make these arguments at the discussion page, Articles for deletion/Nemrud. After six days, an administrator will determine whether the discussion results in consensus to delete the article. I can do nothing about it until then. Please read our guidelines WP:BAND and WP:ATA to learn which arguments are effective. In short, you need to demonstrate that your band is the subject of substantial independent coverage in reliable sources, such as newspapers.  Sandstein   15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?
I uploaded a batch of photos including a couple of musicians photos that I hadn't even heard about before. Whenever I find a photo for a biographical article miaaing a userbox, I end up creating an infobox and putting the photo in it. Then I begin copyediting and cleaning the whole thing, checking for typos, etc, and unless it's an article I plan to edit regularly, I move on. This time, uploading and fixing Tift Merritt, I thought I'd do a little extra bit of adding references, and went to the official website for info. Here's the band part: the entire article appears to be copied from that official website. The only real visible difference is my re-wording to remove POV from the last couple of days. Would you look at it? I am obviously NO Admin., but I believe the whole thing may require a re-write, something than pains me to say. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please tell me more exactly which parts of the article are copied from which website?  Sandstein   20:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi Sandstein. Could you please take a minute and see if these edits constitute violation of 3RR: (continuation of his edit-warring from the previous day),, , ,  (his contributions on history page of the article. The user  has been warned numerous times against edit-warring and 3RR by me, and two other uninvolved users (Please see his talk page).  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for the late reply, but such reports are better made to WP:AN3 where admins will process them faster. It is not immediately clear from your message that this is a 3RR violation because the diffs of the edits that are reverted are not provided.  Sandstein   06:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand Sandstein. You're overwhelmed with many requests anyway. OK, will take a look at AN3. Thanks for the response. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User feedback
Some companies are very responsive, wanting customer feedback. Other companies practically say "fcuk you, we don't care".

Feedback for you is that your unblock request did not seem customer friendly since it looked canned and a reasonable person could conclude that I did comply with the requirements.

Of partial vindication is that I see, after 24 hours, some others are saying my ideas are correct. I try to be analytical and my ideas are sound. They included that the title of the article was a Wikipedian coined term and not a good choice. Furthermore, I will extend not editing the article for another 24 hours.

Anyway, I return with no hard feelings but the hope that you will try to be customer friendly. I can see how someone with not as good a temper become very upset at you. I do not demand an apology or anything close to that. I only hope you will pause privately and contemplate customer service.

Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean this? Sorry, you are not my customer. I'm an unpaid volunteer just like you. You were blocked for edit-warring. Any unblock request of yours must therefore address why you did not edit war or why you will no longer edit war. Your unblock request did not, and my message said as much. See WP:GAB for more information.  Sandstein   06:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I did say that I would not edit the article which makes edit warring impossible. However, you are acting like big companies or governments with unlimited legal budgets. Those entities keep insisting they are right and basically say "fcuk you". I am sorry to see you have such a hostile and rigid attitude. I see others have complained about you before.

You are not like me. You are an administrator with wide latitude to ban (ok, the lingo is block but elsewhere online they use the word ban) people. Furthermore, I see that administrators generally stick with each other and refuse to go against a ban. They act in cahoots even saying so in WP policy (saying that there should be consultation with the blocking administrator). In a fair court system, a judge NEVER decides on the appeal of his own decision.

Anyway, you have the guns so we must bow down to you. I see that there are other administrators who are not so much a bully like you. I've politely asked you to think again and didn't even want you to confess. In return, you stab even harder. If such attitude persists in your real life, cnosider seeking mental help. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you are German. I make a small apology. In German culture, authority has much power to do what they want. Once there was a man who ran from the police and climbed up a tree. The police ordered him to come down. When he did not, they made him come down by shooting him. This was judged as legal. In short, I understand that there are cultural differences. Note, this is NOT a racial slur. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet
I noticed your self-revert at User talk:Binksternet. As I wrote at the end of the section WP:AN/I, I encouraged other admins to avoid the WP:TLDR temptation and read the whole thing. I could unblock him or reduce his block length, but I have abstained. Otherwise I'd reduce the length to 3 weeks. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lanternix
Hi, you recently blocked Lanternix for one month. I thought that this sockpuppetry case may be of interest to you. Planuu (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm no checkuser, and this may need one.  Sandstein   21:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical question
Hi Sandstein, when one hits a "new section" button at your talk page, one sees this message: "Please do not ask me to take arbitration enforcement action on this talk page. Such requests will not be answered. For reasons of transparency and ease of processing, such requests should only be made at WP:AE." and so on

I'd like to add a message for my own talk page that will be displayed, when one hits a "new section" button. Could you please explain to me how to do this? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * - its an edit notice template - see how it was created here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Start User talk:Mbz1/Editnotice. Whatever you put there will appear above the edit box on your Talk page.
 * As an alternative, click on the "Page notice" link in the top right corner of the screen above the edit box on your Talk page. It will take you to User talk:Mbz1/Editnotice. Clicking it on another editor's page takes you to their Editnotice, which allows you to see how they coded their notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * create yourself the page User talk:User talk:Mbz1/Editnotice by adding this and your message to it . Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Who knew?"
Sandstein, you owe me a new keyboard. "So the concept of 'photograph' is novel to some people. Who knew?" made me chortle so hard I spewed my drink all over it.

Is there a suitably snarky term in the Wiki lexicon for overdoing links in the manner you decried? I'm a relatively new editor. Yaush (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. Yes, it's called WP:OVERLINKing, and people like to make fun about it.  Sandstein   20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed your "di-disputed fair use rationale" template. Your concern does not address that the photo showing him as he appeared at the time of the shooting is not replaceable. This will need community discussion to resolve. I suggest that it occur at the thread you started, Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner. If you believe the image is irremediably inappropriate, you should start a deletion discussion.  Sandstein   21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Files for deletion/2011 January 13 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Blankenship
Greetings. In 2008 you closed Articles for deletion/Bill Blankenship and deleted the article Bill Blankenship per the consensus at the time that Blankenship, then an assistant coach for Tulsa Golden Hurricane football, was not notable. Today he is being announced as the new head coach at Tulsa. Could you please userfy the deleted article for me so that I can update it with the new information and then bring it back to article space? Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up note: another editor has already started a new article about him; it might still be worth a look at the deleted article to see if it cites any useful sources or additional information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've undeleted the history. If the person is still non-notable the page would need a new deletion discussion anyway.  Sandstein   20:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I was able to get some usefully formatted material from the old infobox. Most appreciated.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Sock
Hey,

I'm messaging a few admins to see if I can get someone to look at this persistent sock issue. Think you could help? NickCT (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That probably needs a checkuser, sorry.  Sandstein   20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * K. Well the issue is that an editor in Toronto is IP hoping through an extraordinarily large number of IPs.  Rangeblocks risk collateral damage.  I don't know what the appropriate defense here is meant to be, beside some admin aggressively blocking IPs. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Que?
is part of the results discussion. Why do you (re-)move it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I moved it back. I did not imagine that a person who endorsed inflammatory rhetoric was an administrator, but you are in fact one.  Sandstein   08:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries (well, in that regard ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In defence of Stephan, I doubt he was defending my "inflammatory rhetoric", but rather the accuracy of my description as a bystander who viewed the situation and then served as a witness, telling a side of the story that wasn't being taken into account, leading to an unjust judgment. I have also responded on my talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note my polite request that you redact your personal and grossly incorrect attack on me. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. My apologies. You got tarred and feathered for guilt by association when you weren't a major perpetrator, just a supporter, and that muddies the impression of what's going on. Sorry about that. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So have I.  Sandstein   11:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hanging judge passing out jaywalking tickets to people fleeing a burning building


jps (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

RHETI
With regard to RHETI, it is within the scope of WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism, which would clearly make it part of the topic ban. Furthermore, jps himself has called it "...the fancies of some pseudoscientific psychotherapists trying to make a buck off the disaffection of the guileless and the unwise.". He has also called the people involved "charlatans". So it's clear that he considers it pseudoscience. It is my impression that any edit to an article covered by a topic ban is considered a violation. ATren (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg
Hey. Just a heads-up, I'll probably be filing a deletion discussion about this image in the next few days. While I disagree with having a separate article on the guy (though I see the other side's argument given the other cruft that exists around here), I really disagree with the idea that this person is iconic/historic/notable enough to warrant a break in the non-free image use policies. Don't get me wrong, I think the entire policy regarding images of living people is asinine, but if it's going to apply to nearly any biography of a living person, this person shouldn't be an exception. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also not a fan of using mugshots for people not (yet) convicted of a crime, so be aware that BLP will be brought up in such a discussion. It can wait on MZMcBride's nomination, though. In the meantime, you have my compliments on a very well-stated fair-use rationale. Far too many editors, even especially those who know the policy, just write "low resolution" and leave it at that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, MZMcBride. How do you believe the image violates the non-free image use policies?  Sandstein   06:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, do you mean WP:MUG, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light"? This does not apply here, as the mug shot is very much in context with respect to the subject. The crime he's been charged with is the basis for his notability.  Sandstein   06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG is the basic idea. My personal belief is that it doesn't go quite far enough, but in particular that using an arrest mugshot for someone not yet convicted of the charges they were arrested for tends to present them as if they were a criminal, guilty of the crime they were arrested for; this is problematic. Now, in this case, reports say that Loughner was apprehended at the scene of the shooting by individuals who had just witnessed it, and that materials found in his home indicate that he planned to go shoot at Giffords, so it is quite likely that he will be convicted of the shooting. He has not been convicted yet, and so my aversion to using a mugshot as the primary image for any individual still stands. Of course, this image is widely available from news sources, the other two available images of Loughner are also non-free, and one of them, the yearbook photo, is just as unsuitable - so I'm not going to insist that we must speedy delete it the day before yesterday and set the wiki servers on fire just to be safe. I will, however, support deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a blanket ban on non-free images being used in articles of living people (at least for images of the subjects). When J. D. Salinger was still alive, a very limited exception was made due to him being a noted recluse. That's the only exception I know of off-hand.
 * While it's a creative argument you put forward, I don't believe it's accepted. Would the same argument apply to people in Category:Missing people? What about other prisoners or people in custody? I don't think there's any precedent or basis for the idea that there should be exception for someone who's currently in custody.
 * I think a better use of everyone's time would be to get the Arizona whatever agency to just release the photo into the public domain (or find an alternative image that can be released into the public domain), but the current one doesn't seem acceptable under Wikipedia's current policies and practices.
 * In any case, I've been "beaten" to the file deletion discussion: Files for deletion/2011 January 13. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually we don't "have a blanket ban on non-free images being used in articles of living people". WP:NFC, only a guideline, disallows "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Almost always is not always. And a new photo would not serve to illustrate Loughner as he looked at the time of the shooting. Now I like copyright as much as the next lawyer, but I strongly dislike the essentially religious devotion some lavish on the NFCC policy. These are issues that require case-by-case discussion with a view to what our readers expect of us.  Sandstein   19:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think that's fair. Is anyone in the world going to argue that a low-resolution image of any living person violates that person's ability to promote themselves, make a living, or otherwise fall outside what a newspaper would consider fair use? Of course not. When it's an actually notable individual, including a small image of them is completely acceptable, as words can never convey the same information. I think the strict fair use adherence on this site is ridiculous, though I understand its principles. We have an expectation of consistency and fair treatment. If we say that almost any image of a living individual is replaceable by a free alternative, there's no better place to showcase this than at an article that's receiving considerable traffic. It's at these articles that our standard policies and practices should be most strictly adhered to, not ignored or put aside under special exceptions. If we based every decision on what our readers expected of us, every biography would have an image. I'm personally appalled by some of the biographies that currently don't have images. But there are principles at stake here, including WP:NFCC, and while this image hasn't certainly been shown a lot in the media, I don't see any reason to upend those principles in this case. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance
I proposed an article for deletion and am having my contributions attacked without having my reasoning addressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markvs88#My_deletion_tag_was_not_.22spurious.22 If others agree it shouldn't be deleted, ok, but I don't see why I deserve to be attacked and to have someone cast aspersions on my contributions. I asked user brewcrewer about it but couldn't get him to say anything, so I'm coming to you. 74.108.180.175 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * also, in case it's confusing, my IP address changes several times a day but stays within the same range, so it's recognizable. Unlike what I was accused of by user Markvs88, this is not deliberate and quite accidental. If I could make it static, I would. 74.108.180.175 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anybody can remove WP:PROD tags. If you want a deletion discussion, see WP:AFD. I don't see anything actionable in that talk page thread.  Sandstein   21:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I don't know why he's degrading my contributions. I don't think I did anything wrong. 74.108.180.175 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there someone I could talk to about this? 74.101.71.101 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice is to accept that you two disagree and let it go. People do have the right to criticize one another's contributions. What you should not do is cast aspersions on others by claiming that they are "degrading my contributions" or "called me a stalker, claimed I'm paranoid, lied about my contributions" without at the same time providing a WP:DIFF to support your contention, like I am doing here. If you continue to do so, it is you who may be blocked from editing for harrassment. With respect to your second question, please see the advice at WP:DR.   Sandstein   06:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He did call me a stalker and claimed I'm paranoid. It's right there on his talk! 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you continue to accuse others of misconduct without at the same time providing a diff as proof of your accusation, you may be blocked from editing.  Sandstein   19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, I'll give you some diffs. claims I'm a "stalker", trying to "pick a fight", and "goad him", when I did nothing of the sort. claims I'm paranoid for editing from an IP. Tells me that my PROD, which included reasoning for its deletion, was "spurious" and a "bastard effort". If you require any other diffs, please let me know. Thanks, 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not good. Nonetheless I believe that it would be best for both of you to disengage from one another. I do not think that anybody or anything is helped by perpetuating this dispute about a triviality.  Sandstein   11:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I linked to it at the beginning of this thread too (when I linked to the thread). The diffs are merely a few examples of the invective hurled at me. I'm not posting on his talk anymore but what I was asking for was that he merely be told that this is not acceptable behaviour so maybe he'll stop doing it. Otherwise, the next IP, who may be less persistent than me, may simply walk away rather than take all this abuse. 74.108.82.183 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New eyes
Hi Sandstein. I'd appreciate a set of new eyes on this issue if you had a spare moment. Since late December User:Shakehandsman has been soapboxing on talk:feminism about how feminism the subject discriminates against men. Today, Jan 14 2011, at 02:00 UTC he made this edit. Please note the characterization of two living male academics (both named) as "extremists" and "misandrists" (sexist against men). This is a BLP issue, as it is a controversial, unsourced opinion about two living people (both of whom have articles btw) that is both potentially harmful to this site and to the people named. I have given Shakehandsman the opportunity to show good faith and redact it himself by midnight tonight (UTC). If that doesn't happen I will 'snip' the offending bits myself. On investigation this is not an isolated incident ‘’vis-a-vis’’ of the talk space - evidence below. As I have been ignored wrt policy by this user and as I am involved at Feminism, as I said I'm looking for a new set of sysop eyes to police the above issue as all the admins who watch talk:feminism are, in general terms, involved in the topic and/or being ignored. I'm beginning to feel there may be a WP:COI issue here. It's worth noting that Shakehandsman is not alone in soapboxing: see here.

Note: Diffs go back no earlier than September 2010 BLP concerns Soapboxing WP:TPG and WP:SOAP
 * In December 2010 Shakehandsman ran into difficult wrt BLP at Julian Assange where he argued for the inclusion of material that had BLP issues:. But contended that ; “’’ If Assange blames radical feminism for the rape allegations then this needs to be quoted. It's a direct quote in an interview to a highly notable publication. Also it's a view shared by many others and supported by evidence and contradicts any suggestion that it's just the right who are attacking him’’”. No source for this was found and no further arguments for its inclusion were made since Dec 28 2010
 * On Talk: Feminism
 * On Talk:Paternity fraud
 * Opening a move request at Talk:Women's shelter based on the opinion that the article title discriminates against men see this convo

-- Cailil  talk 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is problematic. adds sources but does not help, as  is a blog and does not name the person at issue, Flood. And  reads "have been too quick to stereotype", not "admits he's falsely labelled". - The other edits do come across as unpleasantly soapboxish, but not as immediately actionable. I am removing the BLP problem and warning the user.   Sandstein   19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is ridiculous, the Kimmel comment is so uncontroversial that it's part of his Wikipedia article that's why I didn' source it. Ok I should maybe have added a Wikilink, but that's hardly a problem for me to describe someone as a misandrist when their own Wikipedia article clearly say so and highly inappropriate for people to single me out for repeating a Wikipedia article. And how the hell is the Julian Assange edit at all controversial? Plenty agreed with it's inclusion, the case for not having it was pretty borderline and Sweden isn't a person last time I checked anyway.
 * If Cailil was so concerned about any content he could have left me a message on my talkpage immediately, but instead he hid his concerns in a huge section of text in the feminism take page - an article not even on my watch list and that I generally don't even look at within the 12 hour time frame given. He then gives me a 12 hours deadline to find this, only messaging me 5 hours later once he's involved others. That's terrible behaviour, if it's a 12 hour deadline he should be messaging me immediately, not making it a 7 hour deadline. Also Cailil can you please clarify your allegations regarding COI are they concerning your editing or directed at others? If it is the later please name names and gibe specific evidence. Many thanks (I'll be generous and give you a full 24 hours to do this, the clock won't start until I do the decent thing and inform you personally on your talk page). Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also please note that other accusations aren't being put into context. For example the issue with the feminism article is that editors such as Cailil want to include text about how feminism liberates men in the lead. All people such as myself have done is explain that any misandry within the feminist movement is at least equal to any attempts at achieving men's liberation. Therefore people are simply trying to ensure balance whereas Calali is opposed to this. Also I've just gone through some more of Calili's so called concerns, I mean what's wrong in seeking a gender neutral and all inclusive term for an article about domestic violence shelters? Only one person was opposed to my suggestion and even then it was quite nuanced opposition. Admittedly it's a fine line between explaining a point and soapboxing so I can understand any confusion, but I don't see any real crossing of this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't really speak to the content issues, only to the BLP problem. If you speak ill of living people, you must be careful to support everything you say with reliable sources that match what you say exactly. You did not do so in this instance; please don't do it again.  Sandstein   11:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated the Kimmel misandry allegation is already on his Wikipedia article, as long as it remain then I'm obviously assuming the source to be reliable I'm afraid (and I believe it is). I don't believe anyone should ever face any criticism for repeating sourced content accepted as notable on the encyclopaedia. Anyway, far more importantly I am deeply concerned about the conduct of Calilli generally, not simply towards myself but towards others not sharing his feminist views. In particular as an long standing editor I don't appreciate his COI smears and the one on his talkpage and assuming it's aimed it's at Cybermud also then that's just as serious given his huge efforts in improving Wikipedia. I accept they're not full-on COI accusations, so taking that into account and in the interests of fairness I'll be happy if he simply retracts the text in good faith with no apology required. I am still awaiting clarification as to whether his also aiming this serious allegation at Cybermud also and I will inform that editor of the outcome as he already had significant concerns before this latest possible incident--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dreams
You reverted the Deja Vu section back, I cant help it that no one completed the Deja vu theme before me, and that I can't find another source, to inject into this. None the less it's the truth and I'm the source. Do I need to convince you before the shit doesn't get reverted or what, Jeez. What if Jezus, had to go and study and get published, before anyone believed his shit, right. Now people don't get to know the truth, because we can only say what is known untill now, great, no place for inventors or a real genius here. Maybe I can find a theory by one of you apes to post here. Wiki sucks. 94.227.51.235 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:V for an explanation why Wikipedia does not accept your personal knowledge as the basis of encyclopedia content.  Sandstein   00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Chiropractic and Pseudoscience
Hi, recent AE comments you made led to adding of the Pseudoscience Category to Chiropractic, ostensibly to alert editors that the page is covered under Pseudoscience sanctions. There was brief discussion at User:Cardamon's talk page here. I'm wondering if you can weigh in on the discussion at the Chiropractic talk page where discussion continued. (My question was whether categories are necessarily used to support/reflect ArbCom, or if they should be considered separately on the basis of content; and for that matter, whether a page could be covered under Pseudoscience sanctions but not have the Pseudoscience cat). Anyway, thanks. Ocaasi (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice
Hello Sandstein, need an advice from you. What can be done with this user who's engaged in edit warring? Please look at his last edit on Ermenikend. He's been reverting to it over and over and over again. The user seems to have a personal grudge, even his name seems to refer to ASALA. What's wrong with his edits? Please see the version he keeps reverting to:. The text is highlighted in bold text wherever he feels an emotionally fueled accent should be made, links some of his text directly to nationalist Armenian websites and all of his sources used for references are an ultra nationalist site sumgait.info, some livejournal, Armenian diaspora organizations, Armenian foreign ministry. The article looks like a nationalist forum. The reason I am asking you for an advice is because I had already reported him along with other new similar accounts here, but the admin suggested to file an SPI instead. What can be done to prevent an emotional edit-warring by this user? Should I relist the report in AN? He's been warned a number of times on his talk page. Any recommendation is appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This looks like a case for WP:AE, in view of Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and the corresponding warning of 1:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC).  Sandstein   14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help Sandstein. I reported the user at the above board you suggested. Thanks. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't like the image?
Hey Sand,

Quick question for you;

I'm not really well read on the background here, but it appears to me that these editors are using WP:NFCC to try to justify removing an image they just don't like. Being more experienced with FUR than I, may I ask whether this is your interpretation as well? NickCT (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I tend to assume good faith and consider that they are simply mistaken.  Sandstein   18:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Good old   Sandstein  .  Always assuming good faith.
 * Well, not being too familiar with the practices and principles behind WP:NFCC I'll bow out of the conversation. This policy does seem to generate so much wikilawyering.  Perhaps a reflection of lawyering that copyright law involves..... NickCT (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hi i brought an ANI against User:Onetonycousins for incivility. As the administrator who took action the last time he was brought to ANI, you should roughly still be aware of this users past incivility. Can you have a look here and see what you think should be done this in regards to his comments. Mabuska (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Waiting for the user to reply.  Sandstein   16:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

old rational
There is no consensus for usage in the infobox, although consensus does not over rule policy and guidelines - your rational is weak and unsupported by non free policy and guidelines and is actually one of the reasons for the disruption, suit yourself reverting but that rational is incorrect completely. and reverting my improvement won't change anything. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Couldn't we perhaps wait until the RfC about where to put the image concludes before getting all excited?  Sandstein   23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why keep a false non free rational for a moment longer and why revert to a false non free rational when it has been improved, anyway, I am only slightly excited, but here is something I work towards. and relates to your rational - replaceable -no, he's in jail. I am sure you have seen it many times before, in the heat of the moment, many users come and comment, yes, keep in the infobox, we need it, and then after the heat has gone away we revet back to standard policy. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Loose interpretation of the fair use policy, goes against the mission of the foundation in regard to non free usage - to - "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license," foundation licencing policy  and is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests.


 * It's called a "rational e ". It looks as though our disagreement is not about the rationale as such but the underlying question of whether we should use the image in the infobox or not. People can in good faith disagree about whether fair use allows that, you know. There's already a RFC going on about that question, so why don't we wait until it concludes and then adjust the rationale to match the usage that is eventually decided on?  Sandstein   00:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not to a single E. I completely dispute your rationale and edited to improve and correct that, that false claim has imo caused a lot of disruption and you replaced it, your fair use rational for the infobox as you desire is wrong, completely wrong. I will leave it and see what happens, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just a update comment, imo - Rationales shouldn't be written as weak as possible with the idea that "The old rationale also supports use in the infobox if that is what consensus ends up being" - they should be written as tight as possible - you should not need a consensus to support it, it should be unquestionably - tight. Your rationale for the Tuscon shooting has now been deleted and the picture completely removed from that article. What happens as did indeed happen was users with limited experience of copyright licensing and fair use guidelines read the rationale and accept it as is correct and then want that, support that, which creates the disruption I mentioned and can even create a temporary consensus in the heat of the moment which only serves to extend the disruption, as it will soon be questioned again by the more experienced uninvolved editors. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I do agree that the image does not also need to be used in the article about the shooting. If it is (and stays) removed from there, it makes sense to delete the corresponding rationale also.  Sandstein   21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise you didn't add that template and that it was just a duplicated copy of your rationale, as I see it, the looseness of your rationale would basically encourage multiple usage in any location. No worries, is non free use rationales something you do a lot of? Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No.  Sandstein   21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No me neither, I much prefer commons licencing, a lot of our fair use rationales fail even the slightest of investigation, for example - portion, our picture of the killer (alleged) is for all intent and purposes exactly the same as the original, to claim that only a portion of it is being used is really quite misleading, it has simply had a piece of irrelevant border trimmed and so imo fails the test - How much copyrighted material is used? The amount used must not make the work as a whole less valuable to the copyright holder. - anyway - enough about fair use templates, thanks for listening to my thoughts on the issue, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking
I think I might've seen here how you linked to a page of people poking fun at examples of overlinking. Do you have the link? thanks  Enigma msg  18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be in User talk:Sandstein/Archives.  Sandstein   18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so you don't remember it?  Enigma msg  18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no.  Sandstein   19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SILLIWILI what u were looking for? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PMA
The thread got archived due to filibustering again.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No opinion about the filibustering, but if no uninvolved admin acts on what I believe is consensus, then the consensus probably wasn't that convincing.  Sandstein   21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was possibly a consensus but due to the subpaging, that made no one look at it again. If these behaviors are still occuring, it still probably means that the community restriction needs to be looked at again, possibly without PMA and B2C getting that involved.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hello Sandstein, need another advice from you, if you don't mind replying. Can you please take a look at this message and let me know if this type of messages could be falling into an incivility category:, especially this racist remark ''Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules''? Thanks. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 14:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not incivility, but ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct, which is even more inacceptable. I recommend making a WP:AE report.  Sandstein   21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sandstein. I reported him on the board suggested above. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-made map & Islamic Emirate
Hi Sandstein. You are invited to participate in a discussion regarding a self-made political map on Somalia. The map makes a number of exceptional claims, all of which are unreferenced, including the notion that a part of the country is carved up into something called the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia". As you recently deleted an article on the topic based on the fact that there are no verifiable sources to prove such an emirate even exists, your input on the matter would be most appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my interest in and knowledge of Somali politics is charitably described as "limited".  Sandstein   00:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert rules.
Hello. I thought that I had a reasonable understanding of what constitutes a revert and how the 3RR and 1RR rules apply, but it looks as though I was deluding myself. Do you have the time to answer some questions to clarify things for me, or would you rather I went somewhere else (I've trawled through the Help archives already)?    ←   ZScarpia  19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do ask, but the answer is likely to be a quote from policy :-)  Sandstein   00:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda
Is there a particular reason why you chose to split off themes from the Nazi propaganda page without discussion? I was thinking of splitting it up myself but was waiting to see if anyone would respond to my bringing it up on the talk page, and whether anyone objected to the choices of division. Goldfritha (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Especially since it did not fix the size problem: the themes article is still longer than recommended. Goldfritha (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not bringing it up beforehand, but the split seemed to be a matter of necessity in view of the size of the article. Do you object? If necessary the "themes" article can be split still further, for instance in military and ideological propaganda.  Sandstein   07:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case...
You were the blocking admin. Koalorka is active. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 22:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks. But only intermittently, so blocking the IP is not useful, and anyway IPs can't upload files.  Sandstein   22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I'm fine with it if you are. I didn't see him doing anything wrong (reformed?) but wondered if I was doing something wrong by not informing someone myself. My conscience fully clear now, thank you for helping. ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 22:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)