User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/January

Swadhinata Home Box
Hey Sandstein, recently you deleted Swadhinata Home Box per deletion request. I am was the creator of that article. So I'm requesting to userfy that deleted article.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To which end?  Sandstein   16:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To User:Pratyya Ghosh/Swadhinata Home Box. Which was to deleted after the main article got deleted.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 07:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I mean, what do you want to do with it?  Sandstein   09:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh! I'm gonna improve it in my user space. Things can update in the flow of time. And in future will leave it for a review. -- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm restoring the content.  Sandstein   10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Senkaku Islands
An editor has asked for a Move review of Senkaku Islands. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Lvhis (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Re your closure decision
Hello Sandstein,

I was supposed to have this discussion with you couple days before, but I had an unfortunate accident in my real life that I could not responded your closure of that Request Move until today. I want to discuss with you on your closure decision before I request a WP:MR.

First of all, there was quite obvious consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines. Although there were 5 users insisted on retention of this current title, their arguments lacked good quality as some of them based on cherry-picking, misleading information, wrong search results from wrong search methods. Nine users suggested to change the current titles based on good quality of arguments of comments in line with wp policies and guidelines including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE, WP:NCGN, and WP:NPOV. You closure opinion obviously ignored the quality of arguments and then ignored the consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" should be changed. Please pay enough attention that "Senkaku Islands" is not an English name but a local non-English name.

You listed three your findings in your closure decision. Except the 1st one, two of the three are not objectively reflecting the true fact in the move discussion.
 * Regarding suggested title "Pinnacle Islands", the main reason in discussion is this is an English name and currently still being used. The two local non-English name "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" have equal "POV" problem and either one cannot override WP:POVTITLE, their "most common use" in English have been canceled by each other, you should not compare the "Pinnacle Islands" with either of the two non-English names in terms of "most common use". You should consider what said in WP:COMMONNAME "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" and WP:NCGN. Even looking at the arguments or comments about "against ..." from this "tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community", compared with "against retention of 'Senkaku Islands'" or with "against moving to 'Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands' or 'Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands'", the "against moving to 'Pinnacle Islands'" is the least one, which were from 6 users of 15 participants and 4 of these 6 were those who insisted on retention of "Senkaku Islands" but only 2 users who oppose to use the current title "Senkaku Islands".
 * Regarding "Diaoyu Islands has not been proposed (to any discernible extent) in this discussion", that because I and most of participants clearly realized "Diaoyu" same as "Senkaku" is non-English local name and has same extent POV problem. We honestly and sincerely obey wp policies and guidelines. If "Diaoyu Islands" was the current title, you would have seen it had been in very discernible extent mentioned in this discussion. I hardly believe that you may imply a moving request to title "Diaoyu Islands" should be taken.
 * You conclusion sentence "the article(s) will continue to use the current title, "Senkaku Islands", because that title has been stable since 2010 ..." is not in line with the argument history. The so called "stable" is purely due to forced "move protection". The facts that the title arguments since using "Senkaku Islands" underwent to Mediation and Arbitration themselves have strongly proven the current title is actually very unstable. The current title has damaged and will keep damaging the merit and reliability of Wikipedia.

The last words is regarding your warning on this moving discussion. You said "discussion contains quite a bit of nastiness, edit-warring, inappropriate language and confrontational attitude by various participants", but who was the starter or initiator of this kind of nastiness? Who did such misbehaved so most? It is user Phoenix7777. He did so with such tricks for a obvious purpose to disrupt this discussion and to make it looked like "non-consensus". He got what he wants now as you showed your partiality for him. Your such partiality is not fair and makes your closure statement not neutral or fair and more like an involved discussion.

Based all of above, may I request you reconsider your closure and re-open the Request Move. Thank you. --Lvhis (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. For the following reasons, I decline to undo my assessment of the requested move discussion:
 * Even if I were to agree with you that there was "consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines" (which I have not evaluated because it is not relevant for the purpose of the request), such consensus would not translate into consensus to move the article to a particular alternative title. But that consensus would be required to actually move the article. Because there was no such consensus, which you don't seem to contest, I closed the move request as "no consensus".
 * I don't see how your statements concerning the title "Diaoyu Islands" call my closure into doubt.
 * The article title "Senkaku Islands" is stable in the sense that it has been the title of the article for a long time without interruptions. That, and not the reasons for the stability, is what matters when considering the outcome of a "no consensus" for a move request: whether to revert to a previous stable title (which there isn't in this case) or to maintain the current stable (albeit contested) title.
 * The mere fact that your request for arbitration enforcement against Phoenix7777 didn't result in the outcome you wanted doesn't make me biased against you, as far as I can tell. You may want to review the AE discussion again, where the other administrators who commented agreed that the request could be closed wthout action following the closure of the move request.
 * Regards,  Sandstein   11:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for the reply. Consensus that current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines is the base for the RM and this does be relevant to the purpose of the request. Otherwise, there is no need to have such RM at all. You should evaluate this before you decided to close it and how to close it, but unfortunately you did not, so this is the 1st defect of your closure. The 2nd, although the initial proposed alternative title of this RM was "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands", as user: PBS commented "... at its best the RM process is a consensus building exercise, this means that during the process of the discussion people are encouraged to change their initial views." And some users including me changed our initial views and agreed that "Pinnacle Islands" can be a good title if a slashed dual name technically is hardly facilitated. I like a term user PBS used: "accepted by most but loved by none" so that there was likewise consensus on "Pinnacle Islands" during discussion. But unfortunately again in your closure statement you concluded as opposite and your point was not in line with the fact of the discussion. Your reply above did not answer what I stated yesterday about the title "Pinnacle Islands". Given the fact the title of this article and its related articles has been disputed for a long time, a closing admin who is really responsible to and cares enough for Wikipedia's merit and reliability should first establish that there is a consensus that the current title is inappropriate, and then choose out of the best of the two options presented (as user: Shrigley suggested). The 3rd , you still use "for a long time without interruptions" as your reason that the title "Senkaku Islands" is "stable", but you did not answer my challenge that this "without interruptions" or "stable" is only due to the title under "move protection" but dispute on it never stopped except a period of applying a "restriction for discussion on title issue" like a censorship. Your argument for the current title is "stable" cannot be stood. The last , "a bit of nastiness" in that discussion was clearly started by user Phoenix7777 with his edit on 22 December that violated Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning. If you and other admin blame me that I and other users should have been more tolerant to such misbehavior, it would have more or less sounded reasonable though not perfect, but user Phoenix7777's misbehavior and tricks to disrupt the discussion should be at least clearly investigated and warned. He knows this topic is under discretionary sanctions clearly and still misbehaved so daringly, seemed he felt he could get backed. As you declined to undo your assessment of the requested move discussion, I will regretfully have to request a Move Review. Regards, --Lvhis (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lvhis I became aware of this conversation because you have linked my name in your response. I suggest that you stop flogging a dead horse. The decision has been made and I think made within policy. I do not agree with all the aspects of Sandstein's closing summary, but Sandstein is correct in saying that no clear consensus for a move was obtained. Because editors have better things to do that endlessly discuss contentious, article titles and because when an admin closes a contentious debate they always get people complaining, once you have complained on the admins talk page and they do not act on your complain then as you have done, but only 'if you think you have a procedural issue, then open a [Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. Personally I think you are wrong to have done so as there was nothing wrong procedurally with Sandstein's close. The correct course of action is to wait at least six months (as consensus can change) and then consider opening another RM. However as you opened this RM I would suggest that unless you are confident that you will gain a consensus for a move you leave it at least a year before you start a new RM for "Senkaku Islands". -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sandstein
  Pr at yya  (Hello!) — is wishing you a  Happy New Year ! Welcome the  2014 . Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you - to you as well!  Sandstein   10:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Flula Borg
With respect, I'm very disappointed that this article was deleted so suddenly. I've been asking for feedback on it literally for weeks and got none. I tried to make it it clear on the discussion page that I can provide other references if the ones I used were unsuitable, but I wasn't given an opportunity to fix the problems between the time the feedback was given and the time the page was deleted.

I'm 95% certain I can bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards if I'm given the opportunity. Is there any chance of getting it undeleted and allowing me to at least attempt to fix the problems that concern you and/or the other editors in question? I'm absolutely behind keeping Wikipedia accountable and verifiable and will never dispute deletion of an article that doesn't meet that standard, but I don't feel that I was given a fair chance on this one because of the lack of timely feedback.

Either way, thank you for your help. Have a good week. -- edi (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. As concerns, deleted per Articles for deletion/Flula Borg, I don't think insufficient time was a problem, as the AfD ran for half a month, twice as long as usual. I've userfied the article for you to improve at User:EdiOnjales/Flula Borg.  Sandstein   10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I agree that there was plenty of time to improve the article; I only mean to say that I didn't have time to improve it after receiving the feedback that I'd requested repeatedly some time before that. However, I do appreciate your help and I will get to work on it immediately.


 * Also, I don't want to be a nuisance but I've never been in this situation before and I need some guidance: What should my next step be once I feel that the article is ready for further review?


 * Thanks again for everything. Have a good week. -- edi (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If the article clearly satisfies the concerns raised at AfD (non-notability), because it includes substantial coverage in reliable sources not already discussed at AfD, you can directly restore it. If you are unsure, you should ask at WP:DRV to prevent a speedly deletion.  Sandstein   16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Quebec school board elections
Hello. I'm CJCurrie, and I've written several articles on Canadian politics, including politics in Quebec. I was absent from Wikipedia from December 19 until today; during my absence, an afd took place concerning 27 articles that I created concerning school board elections in Quebec. I see that you were the closing admin for this afd, and that a decision was made to delete all 27 of the pages in question.

I would like to request that you reconsider your decision to delete these pages. My reasons are as follows:


 * (i) There was little participation in the afd. Only two contributors took part in the discussion, apart from the nominator.


 * (ii) The afd took place at a time when many Wikipedians (myself included) were on vacation. My access to the internet was limited from December 19 until today. Had I been able to participate in this discussion prior to its closure, I would have raised several points in support of retaining at least some of the articles under consideration.


 * (iii) The afd was not listed on discussion forums pertaining to Canadian politics. Several editors who may have wished to express an opinion were likely unaware of its existence.


 * (iv) The afd covered 27 different elections over a significant stretch of time, but was listed under the name of one relatively minor election.

The afd was entitled, "Articles for deletion/Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election, 2003." The elections in question took place between 1973 and 2007, and they received extremely divergent levels of coverage.

The afd's short discussion section was focused primarily on two questions: (i) whether or school board elections are inherently notable, and (ii) whether the school board elections in question received coverage beyond a purely local level. Without here offering an opinion on the first question, I'll note that some of the elections in question did receive widespread coverage.

The 2003 Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election was a relatively minor event in Quebec's political history, but the same cannot be said of school commission elections in the 1970s (and, to a lesser extent, the 1980s). The nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and the elections that took place during this period received attention that was both extensive and national (and scholarly: Henry Milner's The Long Road to Reform includes an academic analysis of Montreal school board elections in the 1970s). My view is that, regardless of whether or not one believes school board elections are inherently notable, the mass deletion removed articles about some events that were notable on their own terms.

I do not think this particular afd was the proper forum for an omnibus decision concerning all of the elections in question. For this specific reason, I am requesting that you undelete the 26 "other" pages, such that they may be addressed if and as necessary on a case-by-case basis.

I would also request that you temporarily undelete the 2003 CSMB election page such that a more complete discussion may take place.

Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I can, in part, understand the reasons why you ask me for this. However, based on my experience with AfDs, most if not all of these articles would have been deleted anyway for lack of notability, no matter where the discussions were advertised or who was notified. Taking one typical, random example, Commission scolaire Jérôme-Le Royer election, 1980 contained nothing but a table with the result of the votes for each districts (with each candidate receiving on the order of a few hundred votes) and a single reference to a newspaper as a source. There's no discussion of why this particular election had any importance to anybody, and no references to reliable sources discussing that importance. Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, Wikipedia isn't just a dumping ground for raw data. On that basis alone, regardless of notability concerns, the article would have needed to be deleted. I quite believe you when you say that the nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major (if only local or regional) political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, but in this case it is that broader topic (if there are sources for it) that should be the subject of an article, with the election results summarized at an appropriate level of detail, not necessarily individual elections. In addition, individual editors or projects are not entitled to be informed about any particular deletion proposal; that would run counter to WP:OWN and might even give rise to concerns of canvassing. For these reasons, I'll not restore and relist all of these articles. But if there is any specific article that you believe would benefit from an individual discussion because there are reliable sources discussing that particular election in some detail, such that the article about it could pass WP:GNG, I'm ready to restore and relist that specific article.  Sandstein   09:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologise if it looks as if I'm  butting  in, but  because school and school  related  articles are on  my  watchlist, I  would like to  mention that  although  I  missed the AfD due to  being  absent  for a few days, I  would also  have voted for deletion. In  fact, I  may  not  have voted but  have chosen instead to  close it, in  which  case the result would have been the same as Sandstein's. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I realize that my initial request may have seemed unusual, and I hope that I can clarify a few details with this follow-up post.
 * First, you are quite right to assert that many of the articles under discussion did not provide evidence of notability for the elections in question. This is not (in most cases) because such evidence does not exist or cannot be found. It's rather because I did not foresee that the notability of these pages would be called into question and, for this reason, did not believe that it would be problematic to create the pages in stub form, with the intent of adding more detail at a later date.
 * My view is that most of these pages could be upgraded to "proper" entries without terribly much additional effort. (In passing, I could note that one of the pages capable of improvement is Commission scolaire Jérôme-Le Royer election, 1980, the topic of which was discussed in some detail in Montreal's English- and French-language papers.)
 * This is not, however, the main reason why I requested that you reconsider your decision. My main procedural concern was and remains that this particular afd was not the right forum for an omnibus decision on the notability of entries for school board elections.
 * My own view was, and remains, that the results of Quebec's school board elections are inherently notable. School commissions in Canada are entrusted with significant powers of governance, and it is my view that the results of school board elections are inherently within the public interest. I do not believe that providing interested readers with this information violates WP's policy against "excessive listings of statistics."
 * Others may disagree with this contention, and it is not my intention to debate this point in detail at present. I will simply repeat that I do not believe that this afd was the correct place to determine consensus on the matter — especially in light of (i) the fact that the afd was listed in the name of a single, relatively minor election, and (ii) the limited nature of the discussion.
 * It is for this reason that I requested the un-deletion of the other 26 pages.
 * If you do not believe that this is the correct course of action, then I would request that you un-delete and re-list the following articles: Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1973, Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1977, Montreal Catholic School Commission election, 1980. These are the most individually notable of the elections in question, and it's my belief that they would qualify for inclusion even within the spirit of the recent afd discussion.
 * There is also another possibility that I would like to raise. Even prior to the listing of this afd, I had considered amalgamating several of these articles into centralized entries arranged by calendar year (e.g., Quebec school board elections, 1973 or Montreal-area school board elections, 1973). This approach would have the advantage of permitting the inclusion of more detailed and relevant information about each year's electoral cycle and of providing a repository for appropriate statistical information.
 * At present, this approach strikes me as a possible means of resolving this situation — my only concern is that it could be interpreted as a means of sidestepping the afd decision. As the closing admin, can you provide any assurance that the creation of such pages would not be restricted by the afd?
 * Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't agree with your procedural concerns, and decline undeleting the articles on these grounds. AfD is the proper forum for deletion requests. Collective nominations are not prohibited by its rules, and are relatively frequent. Any concerns that the articles should have been discussed individually should have been brought up during the deletion discussion, not afterwards. If you disagree with this assessment, you can appeal the closure at WP:DRV. As concerns the three articles you would like relisted, can you please provide references to independent reliable sources covering them, so that I can ascertain whether these articles would have at least a remote chance of passing AfD on individual notability grounds? Concerning the creation of new articles, any new articles that contain essentially only the content of the deleted articles (i.e., election results) would likely be speedily deleted per WP:CSD. If they contain additional, sourced encyclopedic text, they would likely require a new deletion discussion.  Sandstein   10:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect this may be a moot point at this stage, but I'll further clarify that I am not questioning the general validity of the principle behind collective afd nominations — I simply believe it was inappropriate to have had all 27 pages listed in the name of a single, not-entirely-representative example.
 * I will require some time to compile a list of independent reliable sources pertaining to the three pages listed above. I am not planning to create any new pages with essentially only the same text as those recently deleted, and I will take your response to mean that you do not regard the pages suggested in my previous post as prohibited by the recent afd decision.
 * Finally, I'll note that I'm quite aware that the recently deleted pages would not be of great importance to most readers. This is, of course, an entirely separate concern from whether or not the materials contained therein were encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Very few Canadian School Board elections are "encyclopedic" in any way. Something serious would have to take place besides just the election for any of them  ES  &#38;L  10:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Martin MacNeill‎ closure
Any opinion or suggestions for a) deletion or b)improvement of the article? --Lexein (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. I can only find that there is no consensus that this person is insufficiently notable to be covered in an article. What to do with the article now is up to the editors interested in it.  Sandstein   18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; it'll all work out somehow. --Lexein (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sandstein!

 * Thank you, and to you as well!  Sandstein   22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction Ban on Estlandia
Any chance I can get the interaction ban to include me? I was unavailable during the AC, so I couldn't speak up. His irrational behavior towards me on the United Poland article, including his contrived edit war, included edit comments directed toward me such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=586508281 please stop unjustified removals. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too)], (together against porn and filth!), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Poland&diff=587111812&oldid=587108409 (@ Ajh1492 - removing sourced stuff and replacing it with unsourced propaganda? Very constructive indeed!)], Stop adding unsourced agitprop! and Rv absurd edit. a 2000 (!!!) source for a party founded in 2012?. I'd personally like to get the block removed from my record since I think the related admins only superficially studied the problem and responded to Estlandia's specious counter-charge. I tried to bring up the fact that neither was 3RR violated plus they never took into account the personal attacks, nor even looked at Talk:United Poland to see the discussion to attempt to engage Estlandia. Instead someone who was being rather rudely treated and verbally brutalized with personal attacks was swept up in a knee-jerk reaction by two admins. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * hasn't edited much since being sanctioned. If they engage in problematic conduct towards you, you can request sanctions at WP:AE. But there does not seem to be an urgent need for admin action at this time.  Sandstein   20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of RoslynSKP
Sandstein, can I ask you a couple of questions about the recent AE block you carried out on RoslynSKP? I'm asking not as an arbitrator, but as someone who commented at the recent amendment request (I recused in the case itself). I made two comments at the amendment request, one here and one here. The questions I had was how you decided on the block length of two weeks and whether you were aware that this would be RoslynSKP's first ever block (is it that common for editors to end up at AE without having been blocked before)? I think you came up with the block length from the AE discussion. I'm not familiar enough with RoslynSKP's editing history to know how often she edits or when she is likely to become aware of the block, but would you, as the blocking admin, be willing to keep an eye on her talk page for the next two weeks? People react in various ways when they are blocked for the first time, and as I said at the amendment request, a lot depends on her response to this block. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I commented on the reasons for the block length in the AE thread - in brief, the enforcement remedy says that first blocks may be for up to a month, which suggests to me that half that time should be appropriate for a first infraction, even more so considering that RoslynSKP continued to infringe the restrictions applying to her even after the request for enforcement was made. I've watchlisted her talk page and will respond to any unblock requests. In general, as with any block, I'm ready to lift the block if I am convinced that the blocked editor understands what they did wrong and that they won't do it again (which, in this case, should be easy considering the now-active topic ban).  Sandstein   16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandstein. It is good to get a timely response (on a substantive point, would you lifting the block re-suspend the topic ban as mentioned under 'community processes' in the decision?). I guess the arbitrators are waiting to see what happens if anything, though I was kind of hoping some of them might have responded to the points I raised. My WWI edits (not that numerous) are mainly in the Western Front topic area, so I'm not that familiar with the Middle East topic area, but I can see that the relatively inflexible way the case remedies were drafted and voted through and enforced means that there is now the potential to lose over the next nine months a huge amount of content editing relating to the Middle Eastern theatre of that war (even giving AE admins the flexibility to impose a shorter length topic ban would have been better than what has happened). To expand slightly on what I said at the amendment request, I'm not sure if you (or indeed the arbitrators) are aware, but this has all put a visible strain on the MILHIST co-ordinators (that was evident from the tone of some of the comments at the AE request and the co-ordinators talk page). If any of the co-ordinators are reading this (I'll ping Nick-D and HJ Mitchell who commented at the request), they have my sympathies, though I am puzzled that this was apparently the first ever block or topic ban imposed in relation to this dispute (surely something less draconian could have been tried first before arbitration?) - if I'd realised this during the case I would have said something. FWIW, I have plans to suggest to MILHIST that they go ahead with increased co-ordination of the WWI topic area, but as I said to Kirill here the timing isn't great (his reply). Trouble is, the timing's not really getting any better. Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, good question. The decision says that "If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension". I don't know if a successful appeal to the blocking administrator would count. Based on the remedy's reference to the page WP:GAB, which describes unblock requests to other administrators, that may not have been intended, but the reference to that page may have been in error because the block is an arbitration enforcement block that can't be appealed through ordinary channels. I think that this question would require a request for clarification to the Committee if the block were ever to be lifted based on a convincing request by RoslynSKP. As regards the editing conditions in WWI-related articles or in the military history wikiproject, I'm sorry to say that I'm not at all familiar with them and so I can't comment about that. For this reason, I also don't have an opinion about whether the Committee's sanction was appropriate.  Sandstein   18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted at the request for amendment, while I initially didn't support blocking or topic banning RoslynSKP for the edit warring, the blatant violations of her restrictions (which, sadly, forms part of a clear pattern of pushing against the restrictions and continuing her unhelpful behaviour) changed my mind and I now think that the topic ban is appropriate as it seems to be the only way to get her to move on (and hence to save the other editors working on these topics from continued grief). I'd have no problem with her asking for this to be lifted in a few months if she can demonstrate productive and collaborative editing elsewhere: the best outcome would be for RoslynSKP to be able to edit this topic (in which she has real expertise) but without the incredibly unhelpful behaviour which has made this a miserable field for other editors (who also have considerable expertise) to work in. I agree that more use should have been made of the admin processes before this went to ArbCom, but here we are. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, Sandstein, for continuing this here.) I get what you are saying, Nick, and the impetus for change absolutely has to come from RoslynSKP herself, but something still feels wrong here. I may be old school in that I'm used to an editor's initial block being short and sharp (a day or two), to make them realise that things are getting serious. Two weeks for a first block just sits uneasily with me. Something has gone wrong when someone can get involved in disputes, get all the way to arbitration, through a case, and out the other side, without ever having been blocked, and then be blocked for two weeks as their first block. Somewhere along the line they got the message that it was OK to argue (and engage in low-level edit warring and reverting) because there were no consequences for their actions (the same could be said of some of the language used at that AE request - I know the MILHIST co-ordinators are all excellent editors, but for many the lasting memory will be the offputting language used there). The question of the userspace drafts does need consideration, because I'd hate to see an argument at AE over whether it is OK for someone coming off a block like this to work on such drafts or not. The aim for everyone here should be to get those drafts worked on and published so that readers of Wikipedia can benefit from them. The final point I want to make is that, like Newyorkbrad at the amendment request, you make the common misconception of thinking that she can ask "for this [topic ban] to be lifted in a few months". The case pages explicitly say that she cannot appeal earlier than nine months. This is the inflexibility I was talking about earlier. I've seen it in other arbitration cases and I know from experience why that sort of inflexibility is built into cases (to prevent excessive and premature appeals), but I think that was a mistake here. Anyway, I'll leave this now, as the only way anything will change here is if we see change from RoslynSKP when (if) she returns from her block. The ball really is, as they say, in her court. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:
Sandstein, your decision is totally unacceptable. You are killing my motivation for contribution for Wikipedia without knowing more closely the situation. And what does "everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" mean? What does Armenia has to do with it? I have zero interest in Armenia or Armenian related articles. I am improving the Georgian related articles and all I do is to contribute, improve them. Check the history of the Georgian alphabet, all I did was I reverted it to the balanced and neutral version as it was back then before it was changed into biased version. I've done nothing wrong to have this kind of sanction from any administrator. Jaqeli (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:Gm545
I saw Gm545's unblock request, and while he does seem more experienced than a genuinely new editor, I didn't see any problems with his edits. In fact his AfD comments are better than average, I'd say. Thus I'm tempted to assume good faith and unblock; at worst that'll just give him some WP:ROPE. Any objections? Any evidence of disruption or strange intents I missed? Huon (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't any disruption caused by their edits, as such. The problem is that their edits betray far too much knowledge of Wikipedia process to be those of a new editor, which they claim to be. Their edits focus on AfD almost exclusively, also highly atypical of new editors. This behavioral evidence indicates to me that they are either an alternate account used in a manner incompatible with WP:SOCK to influence the deletion process, or they are a banned or blocked editor evading their sanction via sockpuppetry. There's plenty of those around. For this reason I recommend against unblocking the account.  Sandstein   20:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While that is certainly possible, blocking should be a last resort, after we have more conclusive evidence than this. --Rschen7754 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Just wanted to point you to this relevant essay here - Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Also, I think AGF applies here, so we should have just welcomed the user.
 * Also, please note that any editors making a WP:CLEANSTART are not required to make any prior disclosures.
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)‎
Please explain how you reached a no consensus on this. Majority of Keeps gave no reason within policy to keep, just said Keep. Votes for deletion are higher than those for keep, and the majority of deletes voiced policy concerns regarding the list. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I explained at some length in the closing rationale why I concluded that there was no consensus to delete the article. As you probably know, there are no votes in deletion discussions. It's true that many "keep" opinions were weak, but so were many "delete" opinions. Accordingly, I focused on the question of whether there was any compelling (rather than "merely" convincing) deletion rationale that might override the default "no consensus" outcome. I found that not (quite) to be the case.  Sandstein   20:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment, and will take it to deletion review. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I take no position whatsoever on how you closed this discussion, but I appreciate your making a decision and writing a summary of the AfD. I expect that what you did will leave many people on all sides of the debate unsatisfied because controversial issues can be difficult to address. It is my view that you made an earnest and competent attempt to do what needed to be done. I would encourage anyone who disagrees with you to respect the effort you shared with the community and take any further action as they like. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to try your best to execute administrative actions. Thank you a lot.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Sandstein   21:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have requested a review of the non deletion here Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, could you either take action as the AfD closer or comment on the discussion about returning names to this list? It feels like it's an end-run around the close (yes it happened before the close but...).  There is a discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * nm, looks like it has resolved itself. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion by Jaqeli
Hello Sandstein. Please kindly note that User Jaqeli has recently violated his AA2 topic ban by editing a controversial article on Armenia, Mithridates of Armenia. The article does not cite any sources and is written in a tendentious manner. Thanks. Hablabar (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned this on their talk page.  Sandstein   23:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal
Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement there, are you saying I am still allowed to remove obvious BLP vios? If so I will happily withdraw the appeal. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because based on your edit-warring it appears possible that you will consider many edits you disagree with to be an "obvious" policy violation even if they are in fact not. You may however point any problematic edits out to others, and if they are that obvious then others will quickly revert them.  Sandstein   23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

sanction clarifications
generic question about sanctions. For Darkness Shines, is the sanction you placed considered a 0RR? Are any edits that remove content then prohibited, or only reverts of recent additions? Is there a page that outlines what list of sanctions are appropriate? (IE, did you just pick a sanction from a menu that may or may not have criteria for use, or are admins allowed to invent sanctions at will for topics that have discretionary sanctions applied? ) I am not attempting to criticize your action, just trying to make sure I understand the policies and process. (I am deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom, so want to make sure I know what the new rules are going to look like)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I invented the sanction myself. WP:AC/DS allows admins to do this. How exactly it works is something I don't see any reason to go into more detail now, considering that it doesn't affect you.  Sandstein   23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure there are good reasons to know the details of how you manage to create new rules out of thin air regardless of whether or not that new rule affects certain parties. Accountability is rather important concept, you know... at least to those of us who er... live in the "outside world". :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi 174.89.163.195, accountability is important, but perhaps you might like to sign into your regular account when asking for such clarifications? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My participation here is just temporary and I can't be bothered to look for my long-lost account credentials. :)
 * And you misunderstood me. I don't care to know his reasons for inventing some rules. Rather, I was amused by the reason he gave for not providing any reasons. Either way, he is entitled to do whatever he wants and I am free to comment however I like. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:AC/DS :
 * Authorization
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Though we usually stick to well known ones, the wording specifically enables admins to adapt to circumstance in a particular case.
 * Those are all appealable, and newly invented sanctions that don't make sense will likely fail peer review, but that doesn't prevent admins from making them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's better. Citing that good o' wall o'text is always better than saying there's no need to cite anything. Otherwise, it's simply impolite, don't you think? :)
 * But anyway, Wikipedia's rules are all pretty labile, from my experience. Most of your rule pages are editable by everyone and yet many are followed to the word akin to how an orthodox priest would follow the holy bible. So I would be surprised if there isn't any mechanism for admins to invent laws on the fly. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We do have WP:IAR - an official policy that tells us to ignore the rules if necessary to improve or maintain the encyclopedia... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @174.89.163.195: So you're saying that you're not a regular editor with an account and that you just happened to discover this discussion by pure chance? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Georgewiliamherbert: And what are the rules on ignoring the rules if necessary? Are there any rules that ignore the rules on ignoring the rules?
 * Re A Quest For Knowledge: I was a regular a long time ago who, by chance, to look up some dude's talk page which happened to link to a topic/discussion I once took part in. And then I saw Sandstein making some comments there with his fluffy blue siggy and followed to his talk page, which then I came across this topic because I am one nosy individual who likes to poke holes in places wherever they are found. And in case you are suspicious - I don't have an axe to grind with Sandstein and I hardly know him other than the fact that he has this blue box around his name. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way AQFK, I am a dev too. Howdy! :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines
You may want to take a look at this. I was not previously familiar with WP:REMOVED, but it appears that this is violation of bullet point 1:

"Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a guideline, not a policy. I have the right to clear my talk page. I have requested clarification on this at ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Sandstein: Before acting, please take a look at this diff. Apparently, there was a conscious decision to remove AE enforced sanctions from the wording, but the editors who made the change didn't realize that "any other notice regarding an active sanction" would be interpreted to include AE enforced sanctions.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the removal and have made an ANI comment to that effect.  Sandstein   23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Sandstein: Thanks, I appreciate your response. As I said, I was not previously aware of WP:REMOVED, but on the surface, it appeared to be clear violation.  Thankfully, Writ Keeper did their homework and discovered that previous discussion.  Had I known that, I would not have brought this to your attention.  I do apologize for that.  On the bright side, hopefully this will lead to improvement of WP:REMOVED so other editors don't make the same mistake.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The content has been restored by User:Toddst1. Removing such warnings and notices from user pages is indeed improper. Other editors need to be able to see what sanctions are currently active, and leaving them there will help to remind the editor in question that their behavior needs to improve. When the sanctions/blocks/restrictions/etc. expire, the message can be removed. If they don't want a badge of shame on their pages, then they need to shape up or ship out. Uncollaborative behavior is not desired here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Criterium??
Twice in your excellent close of the AFD on scientists opposed to the mainstream view of global warming you used the word "criterium." I suggest that the word you want in future postings is actually "criterion." Regards. Edison (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Sandstein   09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

EU Procurement Threshold Levels
Hi Sandstein Re removal of my update of threshold levels for EU Public Procurement that you removed as anti-copyright. The values, terminology and exceptions are specific and therefore cannot be reworded. Can you advise how I can update the entry with the new thresholds without it being a violation of copyright? Regards, Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavidson79 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. The data is not copyrightable, but the way it is presented is, such as the wording of explanatory notes, or the structure of the tables. You may not simply copy the content of other websites, but you must present the data in your own words. You should also omit the amounts in GBP, as the article relates to all of the EU, not only the UK.  Sandstein   10:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good close
This bloody article again. I didn't opine (as I protected it) but I suspect it's one of those that's eventually going to get deleted. Not being familiar, I couldn't work out if it was a POV article designed to disprarage those who disagree with climate change as nutcases, or a POV article trying to point out that there are many respected scientists who don't agree. Either way, it's rubbish. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't quite understand the purpose of the list either, but then many people simply like lists of almost anything. It seems the discussion will go on for at least a year or so more.  Sandstein   11:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For an article that maybe should not exist, it is well written. The creators of the article might have hoped that it would cast doubt on the views of people they consider unwilling to accept scientific evidence. But the first impression given by the article (with its long lists of scientific credentials) is that the GW doubters constitute a respectable, sensible party. Certainly your close sets a high standard for how these things should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robert Sungenis
The edit summary on the above says that you closed the discussion as no consensus. It still appears on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity as having been relisted. There is currently no tag on the AFD page. You seem to have changed your mind in the course of closing the discussion, with the result that something is wrong. Could you please sort this out? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The closure has no technical problems that I can see. As to what is listed on any deletion sorting lists, that's not part of the AfD process proper and I've never concerned myself with it when closing AfDs.  Sandstein   16:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

am I
Allowed to restore comments or editprotect templates added by myself to a talk page which another editor removed? Without even mentioning or asking me in violation of TPG. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your revert restriction applies only to articles, not to talk pages. However, if you edit-war on talk pages, your restriction may be extended.  Sandstein   09:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The template in question was placed in violation of Edit_requests, which requires that a consensus is reached before the templates' inclusion.  There is no such consensus yet on Talk:James Delingpole. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss?
I am sorry to object to your last AE comment (I usually agree with your judgement), however I simply do not think that you can declare "fringe" any source based on its citation (and use this as a reason for sanctions). There are lots of sources with zero citation index in bibliographic databases. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not considering this person's work fringe science because of its position on a citation index. I'm considering it fringe science because it is a self-published book that claims to disprove Albert Einstein's work but has not received any sort of mention in any source - scientific, reliable or otherwise - that can be found. It's hard to get more fringe-y.  Sandstein   19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about is merely a convenience link to English translation. This is actual source/reference, and I have no idea how often it was quoted in other Russian sources, for example. Most important, this book does not disprove anything in SRT. To the contrary, it explains (in one of possible ways) why SRT is so true. Speaking about your proposed sanction, please realize: this is equal to permanent outing of my account. I can promise never edit this page about Ives again, never file AE requests again, or admit an error of judgement and have a wikibreak for a month, possibly enforced by a self-imposed block. That's OK. However, I most probably will never edit here again after receiving such editing restriction. Please realize that... My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't read Russian, but considering that nowadays almost all serious physics publications except those aimed at laypeople are in English, the lack of any citations or other reaction whatsoever in English to the English translation, in addition to the extraordinary claims apparently advanced by the author, are, for me, sufficient grounds to determine that the work represents fringe science that should not form the basis of any of our content about science. As to your outing concerns, I don't see how the proposed restriction could make you identifiable - considering that the author apparently died in 2006, that's probably not who you are. Your proposed alternative remedies wouldn't help, as they are not suited to prevent what I think is the problem here - you edit-warring to use non-reliable sources as the basis of articles. However, if associating you with this author is a problem for you, an alternative sanction could be a restriction from using any source as the basis of article content about theories or hypotheses in physics if that source is not a peer-reviewed publication or a textbook in English by a reputable scientific publisher.  Sandstein   21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What he is talking about are not extraordinary claims, but physical explanations of several well known relativistic effects in framework of electrodynamics (in full agreement with SRT). Do you really believe that "lack of any citations or other reaction whatsoever in English" invalidates any source? Maybe ~20-30% of scientific papers published in English have zero citations. Surely, arbitrators did not mean to count all such publications "fringe", would not you agree? And I doubt that official WP:RS policy considers sources with zero citation unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: My very best wishes may be using an idiosyncratic definition of "outing" to mean that they will be "out" of Wikipedia (i.e. no longer editing Wikipedia). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) ( Thanks, that makes sense.   Sandstein   22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC) )
 * As explained above, it's not a matter of (only) citation numbers, but the English version being a self-published work (apparently no serious scientific publisher was interested in the translation?) combined with an absolute lack of any reaction by the scientific public whatsoever (no media articles, reviews etc.), and the extraordinary claims the work apparently makes (by which I mean, claims that are so novel or peculiar that one would expect some sort of response by the scientific community if the claims were even remotely plausible).   Sandstein   22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, most claims by this book are not at all novel. And here I would like to quote my "content opponent", Urgent01 . He tells: "There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references." I do not necessarily agree. That is what he thinks. According to him, this is simply another book on the subject, and there are many hundred books on SRT. So, it comes at no surprise that a self-published English translation of a book, which is possibly well known in Russia, did not bring much attention. So, a non-notable book? Yes, maybe. A fringe? No. Also keep in mind that widely cited publications in science are those about discoveries. This is a book on teaching/presenting SRT, and the overall approaches to teaching Physics in US and Soviet Union are very different. Yet another reason for the book not be cited. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just checked: 33,000 hits in Russian internet. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, here are my arguments: (a) my edits like this (diffs you provided on AE) actually insert a reference to the Russian book (please check), and the link to self-published English translation was provided merely as a "convenience link"; (b) this Russian book is not "fringe", and therefore such edits are not covered by the "fringe science" discretionary sanctions (I just checked the case, and the teaching approach described in the book hardly belongs even to alternative formulations); (c) I did edit war, just as my content "opponent", which might be a reason for a block if the matter was timely brought to 3RR noticeboard (there was no 3RR violation by anyone). I apologize for that and promise be more careful in the future; (d) I do not see any evidence of systematic COI problems on my part - I edited a lot of materials about people I knew or related to my work and never had any problems (that was the first episode, which could be interpreted this way). I would highly appreciate if we could discuss these matters here prior to issuing any sanctions. At the very least, please tell me here in advance if you are going to proceed with sanctions, even after receiving this clarification. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
Thanks for the heads up that this topic is sanctionable. The article, as it stands now,  is quite different from my first few edits (more sources,  sort of "sugarcoated" less direct/controversial claims). Is it still objectionable, in your opinion? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, which article? How does this concern me?  Sandstein   09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't concern you per se, but you did appear to take interest on the article of James Delingpole on AE. I was just curious on whether you thought that sanctions could be applied to the authors of the current version (myself included). --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't say. I'm not familiar with the topic or the sources. If there are any remaining problems with the article, they will need to be resolved through the normal dispute resolution process.  Sandstein   12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal
I have filed an appeal against the sanction you imposed here Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss?
I am sorry to object to your last AE comment (I usually agree with your judgement), however I simply do not think that you can declare "fringe" any source based on its citation (and use this as a reason for sanctions). There are lots of sources with zero citation index in bibliographic databases. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not considering this person's work fringe science because of its position on a citation index. I'm considering it fringe science because it is a self-published book that claims to disprove Albert Einstein's work but has not received any sort of mention in any source - scientific, reliable or otherwise - that can be found. It's hard to get more fringe-y.  Sandstein   19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about is merely a convenience link to English translation. This is actual source/reference, and I have no idea how often it was quoted in other Russian sources, for example. Most important, this book does not disprove anything in SRT. To the contrary, it explains (in one of possible ways) why SRT is so true. Speaking about your proposed sanction, please realize: this is equal to permanent outing of my account. I can promise never edit this page about Ives again, never file AE requests again, or admit an error of judgement and have a wikibreak for a month, possibly enforced by a self-imposed block. That's OK. However, I most probably will never edit here again after receiving such editing restriction. Please realize that... My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't read Russian, but considering that nowadays almost all serious physics publications except those aimed at laypeople are in English, the lack of any citations or other reaction whatsoever in English to the English translation, in addition to the extraordinary claims apparently advanced by the author, are, for me, sufficient grounds to determine that the work represents fringe science that should not form the basis of any of our content about science. As to your outing concerns, I don't see how the proposed restriction could make you identifiable - considering that the author apparently died in 2006, that's probably not who you are. Your proposed alternative remedies wouldn't help, as they are not suited to prevent what I think is the problem here - you edit-warring to use non-reliable sources as the basis of articles. However, if associating you with this author is a problem for you, an alternative sanction could be a restriction from using any source as the basis of article content about theories or hypotheses in physics if that source is not a peer-reviewed publication or a textbook in English by a reputable scientific publisher.  Sandstein   21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What he is talking about are not extraordinary claims, but physical explanations of several well known relativistic effects in framework of electrodynamics (in full agreement with SRT). Do you really believe that "lack of any citations or other reaction whatsoever in English" invalidates any source? Maybe ~20-30% of scientific papers published in English have zero citations. Surely, arbitrators did not mean to count all such publications "fringe", would not you agree? And I doubt that official WP:RS policy considers sources with zero citation unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: My very best wishes may be using an idiosyncratic definition of "outing" to mean that they will be "out" of Wikipedia (i.e. no longer editing Wikipedia). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) ( Thanks, that makes sense.   Sandstein   22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC) )
 * As explained above, it's not a matter of (only) citation numbers, but the English version being a self-published work (apparently no serious scientific publisher was interested in the translation?) combined with an absolute lack of any reaction by the scientific public whatsoever (no media articles, reviews etc.), and the extraordinary claims the work apparently makes (by which I mean, claims that are so novel or peculiar that one would expect some sort of response by the scientific community if the claims were even remotely plausible).   Sandstein   22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, most claims by this book are not at all novel. And here I would like to quote my "content opponent", Urgent01 . He tells: "There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references." I do not necessarily agree. That is what he thinks. According to him, this is simply another book on the subject, and there are many hundred books on SRT. So, it comes at no surprise that a self-published English translation of a book, which is possibly well known in Russia, did not bring much attention. So, a non-notable book? Yes, maybe. A fringe? No. Also keep in mind that widely cited publications in science are those about discoveries. This is a book on teaching/presenting SRT, and the overall approaches to teaching Physics in US and Soviet Union are very different. Yet another reason for the book not be cited. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just checked: 33,000 hits in Russian internet. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, here are my arguments: (a) my edits like this (diffs you provided on AE) actually insert a reference to the Russian book (please check), and the link to self-published English translation was provided merely as a "convenience link"; (b) this Russian book is not "fringe", and therefore such edits are not covered by the "fringe science" discretionary sanctions (I just checked the case, and the teaching approach described in the book hardly belongs even to alternative formulations); (c) I did edit war, just as my content "opponent", which might be a reason for a block if the matter was timely brought to 3RR noticeboard (there was no 3RR violation by anyone). I apologize for that and promise be more careful in the future; (d) I do not see any evidence of systematic COI problems on my part - I edited a lot of materials about people I knew or related to my work and never had any problems (that was the first episode, which could be interpreted this way). I would highly appreciate if we could discuss these matters here prior to issuing any sanctions. At the very least, please tell me here in advance if you are going to proceed with sanctions, even after receiving this clarification. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
Thanks for the heads up that this topic is sanctionable. The article, as it stands now,  is quite different from my first few edits (more sources,  sort of "sugarcoated" less direct/controversial claims). Is it still objectionable, in your opinion? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, which article? How does this concern me?  Sandstein   09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't concern you per se, but you did appear to take interest on the article of James Delingpole on AE. I was just curious on whether you thought that sanctions could be applied to the authors of the current version (myself included). --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't say. I'm not familiar with the topic or the sources. If there are any remaining problems with the article, they will need to be resolved through the normal dispute resolution process.  Sandstein   12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal
I have filed an appeal against the sanction you imposed here Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Delingpole BLP
I removed what you appear to indicate are clear violations of WP:BLP and think it is time to lock up this puppy James Delingpole before anyone tries to re-add the clearly inapt snippets. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, what I objected to on BLP policy grounds was stuff like "mental midget" or, without sources, "he has no scientific qualifications". What you removed reads like a more or less veiled attack on this person's credentials, and may be objectionable on neutrality grounds, especially given its position in the lead. But whether it actually violates our BLP policy would need scrutiny of the sources and the whole article, which I have not done. It's in my view a possible BLP policy violation, but not an obvious one (as would e.g. "D. is a corrupt asshole"). If you think that the article needs protection, WP:RPP would be the place to request that. At a glance, there does not seem to be ongoing edit-warring that would need immediate protection. If somebody adds content in violation of the BLP policy, it might be preferable to request targeted sanctions against them at WP:AE instead of locking up the article for everyone.  Sandstein   14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

ARBCC notice request
Hi, I just read your bubble up above, and I'm not sure really how to proceed so I'll just ask anyway. Please steer me to your preferred process (there seems to be several different views on the current notice/logging process!) What I cam here to say, before I saw the  bubble, is.... Please consider giving and logging the ARBCC notice to, formerly known as [struck as irrelevant,   Sandstein   15:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)]. While the notice is not supposed to carry any stigma, or be an indication of any wrong, but rather is supposed to just be an FYI, I did become concerned due to recent edit warring stopping just shy of 3RR. But since I just linked to a post with the diffs I suppose I should say for super clarity that I am not asking for any enforcement over those diffs. Just the FYI notice (and logging at ARBCC) in case there's a future problem. Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, done. (Per current terminology, it's a warning, not a notice.)  Sandstein   13:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quick response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What was the purpose of posting the old username used by DHeyward...he was never sanctioned under that name and looks like the change wasn't done to avoid anything.--MONGO 15:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there's something called "institutional memory", which may be favorable or unfavorable, either way, and although it isn't the same thing as evidence, the fact that it exists has the potential to effect the proper evaluation of evidence - for better or worse - and that's is especially true if it is left in the subconscious. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't know but there are oftentimes very good reasons why people switch names and it has nothing to do with bad behavior. You're about to get onto some thin ice.--MONGO 15:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Black ice I suppose, since I didn't see it coming. Thanks for head's up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for striking, Sandstein, I should have thought of that, though I still don't see the problem.... but if I created one, I apologize to anyone effected including. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * NAEG, your're a troll. Outing and harassment is not allowed.  None of my edits were edit warring, which you of course, know.  And occurred over multiple days.  You knew I was a aware of arbcom case since I posted at the arbitration enforcement page before you requested the template.  You also know I discussed my edits and you added edits that had material I suggested.  Leaving a stop sign template and what you did for "institutional memory" (of which all my edits were moved from, but thanks) is a bit off.  I suggest you leave my talk page alone and stick to actual violations instead of "might maybe in the future sort of."  --16:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied at user's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi, as you know my topic ban includes from everything concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan has been made indefinite, but with a sports exemption. I want to ask, can I edit this Chovgan article, it is related to history but Chovgan known as sport? --NovaSkola (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you ask me about something, please link to it - in this case, your sanction and the article. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Lev Lomize book
Hi Sandstein,

FYI, the book mentioned above was published in Russian by the Prosveshcheniye ("Enlightenment") publishing company, a Russian publisher that has been around since the 1930's (http://prosv.ru/). This publisher has a lot of titles and it's the subject of a Russian Wikipedia article (ru:Просвещение (издательство)) which says it has annual revenue of 3.1 billion (if that means rubles, it's around 90 million USD). "[N]owadays almost all serious physics publications except those aimed at laypeople are in English" is a non-sequitur. The book is not exactly aimed at laypeople, but it's not a research publication either. It appears to be an expository book on relativity written at the level of undergraduate physics textbooks that we're used to here. There's no reason to expect such a book to be written in English if the expected readers were in Russia. The book doesn't appear to advance any unusual scientific claims (at least that I've spotted from a minute of flipping around the English version), but rather its goal appears to be explaining standard topics in a novel way for pedagogical purposes. Googling the Russian title and author gets 4000+ hits, a lot of which are sites hosting pirate scans, indicating that the book had some following. I don't read Russian either but I was able to figure out the above with a couple minutes of pasting Russian words into Google and transliterating a few of them back to recognizable English. So I think your overall assessment of the book didn't take enough information into account. One of the Russian-speaking physics editors might be able to advise further. Regards, 50.0.121.102 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you ?  Sandstein   13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. They're evading a self-requested block. I've just blocked the IP, because a self-requested block isn't a joke, any more than other blocks. I made that quite clear to the user before agreeing to block them. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC).


 * OK... My very best wishes, if and when you unretire and are unblocked, you may appeal the topic ban through the usual process. Prior to that, all discussions about it appear pointless to me.  Sandstein   14:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What I don't get is why My very best wishes is so obsessed with using this book. Even if Sandstein's analysis is incorrect (and it doesn't appear to be), why not just simply use another source?  Surely, for a topic like physics, there should be plenty of peer-reviewed and academic sources to use.  71.57.124.89 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sandstein -- no, MVBW isn't me. AQFK: my guess is that MVBW used that book because he was familiar with its contents and had a copy available.  I agree that a book more widely known to English speakers would have been a better choice. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, the point is moot as long as the user is retired and blocked independently of the sanction.  Sandstein   05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

DAVID HOCKING
WHY WAS DAVID HOCKING'S NAME DELETED? e-mail suppressed 108.193.254.175 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because a community discussion at Articles for deletion/David Hocking resulted in consensus to do so (i.e., nobody objected to the deletion proposal).   Sandstein   10:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Feathercoin article
Please where can I access the text of the deleted Feathercoin article. I have made textual contributions to it, of which I have no backup. Could you please paste the deleted article to my user space? Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I may not paste the text of without proper attribution, and that would require restoring the full history. And your contributions are too dispersed to easily extract them from the deleted history. So I can't do what you ask.   Sandstein   09:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So deleting the article with 50-50 keep-delete discussion is a go, but making the text available to the contributors for revision is a no go, am I getting this right? Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We can restore the article with its history under some circumstances, see WP:USERFY. What we can't do is what you asked, i.e., pasting the contents somewhere.  Sandstein   11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As the article has been deleted again and I'm the original author, please move it to my user space at Feathercoin according to WP:USERFY - WSF (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What would you like to do with it?  Sandstein   14:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * To keep for personal use currently. If Feathercoin gains enough notability in the future, it may be improved and restored or used as a source for another article. - WSF (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, userfied at User:WSF/Feathercoin.  Sandstein   17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you are realizing that what is being disputed here is your decision to close the discussion with 50:50 delete/keep votes. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that cannot be true as that's clearly not under dispute - AFD's don't go by !vote, they go by policy-based discussion. And obvious !votestacking always does the opposite of what you want  ES  &#38;L  00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Kokot.kokotisko, the closure can be appealed at WP:DRV. As explained above, discussions are not votes, and administrator take the strength of the arguments in the light of our policies and guidelines into account.  Sandstein   14:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple ARBMAC violations
Since you are one of the active admins in this field, I have to inform you that user:Slovenski Volk decided, some months now, to ignore his indefinite ARBMAC ban [] (and this wp:ae []) and launched a full scale campaign editing and edit-warring into the ARBMAC field (hist last block due to edit war was in Scythians). This occurred as soon as he realized that user:Athenean, who sent him to wp:ae in the past, isn't active and therefore he saw this as a great opportunity to return.

Right now he edits in all historical periods (classical, iron age, medieval, etc except from the modern era) and in all related ethnic groups (Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, (origin of) Albanians, Illyrians etc). For the record he is still allowed to edit only in Prehistory and Roman era Balkans per: [], but he decided to render the entire ARBMAC ban useless, pretending that his ban concerns only the modern Macedonia naming dispute, which by the way, was never one of his interests.

Therefore, I believe that a precise definition of his area of restriction is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Alexikoua is manipulating and unfair, and is maliciously trying to incriminate me for personal reasons. I was placed on Arbmac restriction for edit warring in Ancient Macedonians, which I admit guilt to. Becuase I had one prior block in the Kosovo article and the Scythians (which actually have nothing to do with the Balkans but are from Iran and southern Russia), I was placed on ARBMAC ban. I have never edited article about modern history, wars, conflicts or anything political. My only interest has ever been in ancient history, to which i make substantive, high-quality, good-faithed and neutral edits to; with native-command of English and using the latest and best quality tertiary literature (something that other editors have never even heard of). I have stuck to the terms of my restrictions. I have not touched on amnything regarding ancient macedonians - broadly construed (including Alexander the Great, or the Verginia Sun, etc), nor anything relating to Yugoslavia and its conflicts, politicians, killings, Kosovo status etc etc (and never have). Admin Blade of the northern Lights sclarified to me " Anyways; ARBMAC is generally meant to cover the former countries of Yugoslavia (although in practice, I'd have no problem with you editing articles on Slovenia) as well as the naming dispute between the FYROM and the Greek province" but "The Neolithics and Roman Balkans aren't a problem" and "other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine". Alexikoua brings up the following article which she has problems with my deiting:
 * Genetic history of the Turkish people. A wholly different people unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute.
 * Bulgars. An ancient Turkic people unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute.
 * Peloponessus - a Greek province unrelated in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. Quoting the Blade.. other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine
 * Illyrians an ancient people which lived between the Bronze Age and ROman period; with no bearing in anyway to the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute. As above, her, Blade stipulated ''Neolithics and Roman Balkans are fair game". (with the implication of time periods in between)
 * Archaeology of Roman & Medieval Epirus w.r.t Albanians. A separate nation -state with a wholly different people unrelated with no involvement in the Yugoslav conflict or Macedonian naming dispute, focussing solely on archaeology of northern Albania (Thus avoiding the risk of delving into any issue of Greek-Albanian territorial conflicts, etc which I do not even follow or have ever edited in).
 * Cyrillic alphabet: an article on letters (!) used by almost half of Europe, with no bearing on ARBMAC.
 * Scythians a wholly unrelated people who lived in Iran, southern Russia and Kazakhstan in 700 BC !, again with no bearing.... that I have other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine
 * I really think that none of the above articles have anything to do with Arbmac. But see for yourself, and I shall abide by your clarification. Moreover, mark but my edits: . Surely any objective reader can see how academic, neutral and much-needed they are for Wikipedia ?! Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the ARBMAC concerns all Balkan related articles, broadly constructed, (Scythians settled also in the Balkans) not the naming dispute (a topic you were never interested) which is a small part of it. Unfortunately, you still avoid ARBMAC, since you are eager to return to the very same field you created disruption and have been several times blocked in the past (i.e. ancient & medieval Balkans).Alexikoua (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes a "part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans", not anything remotely to do with the Balkans. But the Scythians (which never settled the Balkans FYI), the Illyrians, the Turks, are not part of these interrelated set of problematic modern political issues (and many of them arent even from the Balkans!). And whilst I admit I had edit -warred in the past, I take offence at "you created disruption". My edits are nothing by fair, good-faithed and scholarly. Before casting aspersions, let me remind you of how certain editors (not mentioning any origins) tag-team to appear to reach "concensus' whilst actually holding every article hostage and driving away any well-meaning editor away. This is not fair Wikipedia approach. This was the only reason I was blocked from ARBMAC, becuase I eventually succumbed to the frustration of tag-teaming mass reverting of well-referenced material simply becuase you didnt like it. I blame myself for taking the bait, and not seeking other avenues which I am now area of, but these new blames are rediculous Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I admit you are the first user under ARBMAC, so far, who believes that Illyrians, Origin of the Albanians, Macedonians (ethnic group), Bulgarians, have nothing to do with this kind of ban (in fact they are part of the core of Balkan related articles). In case you believe your restriction was unfair, simply ignoring it isn't a sound approach. If you want to respect the community you need to appeal first.Alexikoua (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexikoua, you have already made this complaint on the talk page of the sanctioning administrator,, and they have not yet replied to it. To avoid confusion, you should make such complaints only in one forum at a time, and generally only at WP:AE. If you disagree with whatever The Blade of the Northern Lights decides to do about your complaint, you may request enforcement of the sanction at WP:AE.  Sandstein  09:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks.Alexikoua (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castle
Würden Sie bitte so freundlich sein und sich zu ihrer Aussage ...this is a temporary exhibition about a niche topic in a small country, and of exceedingly limited interest to everybody... hier erklären. Danke schön!--Schönegg (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think no elaboration is needed. Please leave any follow-up comments in the deletion discussion, so that others can follow it, and please use English when commenting in this Wikipedia. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability (law)
I've noticed the edit you have just made to this page. This page is not a guideline. It is only a proposal. Changes to it do not have to reflect consensus, because there is no consensus for any of it in the first place. The whole point of the proposal process would be defeated if we have to wait for consensus before changing a failed proposal. James500 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't remember it being a failed proposal.  Sandstein   21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Banning for Good Faith Efforts
Dear Sandstein, you banned me, because on the Global Warming Talk page, I was making good faith efforts to ensure a new editor on his first day was treated fairly and to protect the integrity of the Talk page against censorship - deleting and hiding with fallacious unsigned editorial comments - that would likely lead to bias in the article. However, I recognise that however badly I feel other editors may have behaved, that the 3RR rule is sacred, and even applies when multiple edits are only distantly related, and that the Talk Page Vandalism exemption may only used for cases of vandalism that would be more clear to a majority of other editors. So I will endeavour to reform and edit within the rules in the future. How do I get myself unbanned? cwmacdougall 13:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You may appeal the ban either to me, to WP:AE or to the Arbitration Committee. In order to convince me to lift the ban, you should convince me that you understand why the sanction was applied and that it is not necessary any more. What you write above falls quite a bit short of that.  Sandstein   14:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's start with appealing to you. I understand why the 31 hour sanction was applied, but I certainly do not understand why a longer sanction was applied.  I am surprised that you do not find the actions of the other editors to be vandalism, but even if you don't, then surely you can accept that I acted in good faith in thinking they were?  It's the first time in several years of editing that I have seen such extraordinary behaviour.  Did you actually read through the examples cited?   cwmacdougall 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Per WP:NOTVAND, vandalism doesn't simply mean "something I disagree with". Vandalism is the intentional attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, such as replacing article content with "poop!". The edits you edit-warred to revert were obviously not vandalism. On the contrary, they were well-founded. If you are of the view that an article is biased, you must not edit-war to have it display a "POV" tag, because that tag in and of itself does nothing to improve the article. You should instead propose and seek consensus for specific changes that would remedy the bias you allege. If you can't find consensus for these changes, then there is also no basis for the "POV" tag. Likewise, per WP:NOTFORUM, article talk pages are not forums for general discussions of the topic of the article, and threads that do not help editors improve the article may be removed. Because, as you say, you do not understand why I banned you from the article Global warming, the sanction is still necessary. The appeal is declined. You may appeal the sanction to the AE noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein   17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, are you talking about the Talk alleged reverts. or the alleged reverts to the article itself? It is difficult to respond to this kind of shotgun attack.  The Talk page alleged reverts were reversing vandalism of the Talk pages, where editors were deleting and hiding the contributions of other editors.  Nothing to do with disagreeing with content. That was why I was banned for 31 hours.  I made very few edits to the Talk page itself, and only after well sourced discussion on the talk page, and stopping that after further discussion.  Again, perhaps a short ban might be understandable, but not a permanent ban. cwmacdougall 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both. The reasons for your article ban are explained in the complaint at WP:AE and in my previous messages. As long as you think anything you reverted was vandalism, there's no point in discussing this further.  Sandstein   19:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, so we have thought control on Wikipedia now, do we? It's not enough to correct behaviour, I have to believe the right things too?  I will appeal.  cwmacdougall 21:09 19 January, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. This means that as long as you do not convince me that you understand the reasons for the ban, the ban is still needed to prevent you from resuming the same disruptive conduct.  Sandstein   21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

History of the Southern Levant
Sorry about the reversions. I've only just realised that the page no longer exists. I wouldn't agree that it should no longer exist. But I missed the debate so that's moot. However, the decision seems ton have been "merge", not "delete". Is this correct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus was to merge wherever the content is most appropriate. I recommend removing the "main" link again, as it's now only a redirect back to the same article.  Sandstein   22:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So if the decision was to merge, then where is the merged content? I can find none of it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in the article history, anybody can merge it from there to the extent this is helpful in the target article(s).  Sandstein   05:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So where does the onus lie for giving effect to the final decision? Is it acceptable to just perform a partial job? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As is usually the case on Wikipedia, whoever wants anything done is invited to do it - in this case, merging the content from the history.  Sandstein   21:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Banned User:IHaveAMastersDegree, anti-skeptic edits
Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow. Bah. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Be aware that, as a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you treat it as such, including rhetorically, you may be sanctioned yourself.  Sandstein   22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
It was closed as moot due to IHAMD being checkuser blocked with technical evidence; however, the editor was subsequently unblocked (due to identity confirmed), and therefore this thread should be reopened. I will reopen this shortly. I am leaving this note here because you were involved in the discussion regarding what to do about the editor. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 18:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've now acted on the request.  Sandstein   21:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am writing to find out if it is permissible to request that the block be lifted temporarily until I have had the opportunity to complete my response. I was inadvertently banned during most of the open discussion process so I was prohibited from editing the discussion page during the time that other individuals were allowed to.  I was just preparing my response when the discussion closed so I was unable to post it.  Is there a way to request that the discussion be opened long enough to allow me to post a response, so that administrators can consider my defense?  If you look at my talk page, you can see that I stated my intention to do that only a few minutes before you posted the topic ban notice closing the discussion.  Thank you.  IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (You may be confusing ban and block.) No, considering that you already had (and used) the opportunity to respond to the complaint after it was made. In any case, now that the sanction has been imposed, it can only be changed by way of appeal, either to me as the sanctioning administrator, or to the AE noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. If you have any arguments that might cause me to reevaluate the necessity of the sanction, you may still present them here.  Sandstein   22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading ambiguity about the scope of IHAMD's TBAN: is it (1) BLP articles related to climate change (using the logical AND) or (2) BLP articles, as well as climate change articles (using the logical OR)? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 14:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The former, as I attempted to make clear by using the qualifier "both". The latter would be obviously overbroad and beyond the scope for which discretionary sanctions are authorized.  Sandstein   14:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock Puppet account
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ZeroesAndOnes/Archive

I am definitely not a sock puppet account. I AM however a user of the software Feith. I was made aware of the possible deletion of the article so I chimed in. I don't actively contribute to wikipedia and I still don't understand why the page was deleted as compared to other business pages in the same type of business. Maybe the page was too commercial, I don't know.

Scvff (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ... And this concerns me how?  Sandstein   18:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, your response comes off as brusque. You closed the deletion discussion. I don't think it's unreasonable for an editor, especially a new one, to request an explanation or clarification from you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which deletion discussion? People, if you want me to do something, you need to tell me what, and link to whatever it is you talk about. See WP:GRA.  Sandstein   07:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Feith Systems Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK... I think the explanation I gave for closing the discussion says everything that needs to be said.  Sandstein   11:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Appellation d'Origine Protégée
Should this subject have its own article? It currently redirects to Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union but I am not seeing it well covered there on first glance. There is an article for Fracne's Appellation d'origine contrôlée and the respective organizations in the U.S. Came across the issue starting an article on Pain de seigle valaisan. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not an expert about the topic, and how significant this designation is. In general, anything that passes WP:GNG may (but not necessarily must) have an article. Regulatory stuff like this is usually well covered by sources, so the potential for an article should be there.  Sandstein   17:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave it a rough start. There is a link at the bottom to the rather extensive article on the subject in the French Wikipedia. It seems that different names are given to the designation in different countries based on the language used in particular European Union Nations. So perhaps at some point a broader article might be warrented. I guess that was why it was redirected to the GIS article (which I included it as a see also). Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK... it's... a start. Generally, articles should cite reliable sources, which your stub doesn't. You may want to address that, and also some spelling errors ("regimine").  Sandstein   11:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

John Michael Greer Deletion
Hello, I am not an editor, just a thankful Wikipedia user. I would like access to a page on John Michael Greer that you deleted. I am not the creator of the page, but I need to review this page for research purposes. And no, I am not John Michael Greer, nor am I a member of the large 100-year old religious order that he heads. I am not even acquainted with Mr. Greer other than through his works and the frequent citation of his works.

As I understand the page was deleted because editors were unaware of his "notability." Before I attempt to quantify Mr. Greer's "notability," in short, if you were to ask 10 people who were familiar with Peak Oil who the "most notable" current peak oil theorist was, Greer, along with James Kunstler (who has a wiki page) would be one of the most common responses. But if you were to ask people familiar with occultism who the "most notable" living occultist was, they would all name Mr. Greer.

Within the Peak Oil community his "notability" has made him one of the most sought-after keynote speakers, including keynote addresses at: 5th Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference, Great Lakes Bioneers Conference, Chicago Bioneers, Greensong, etc.

As you are aware, the purpose of a "Keynote" address is to "establish a key underlying theme for an event" Mr. Greer's ideas have certainly helped "establish the key underlying themes" within peak oil and certain environmental circles (especially those associated with "deep ecology" opposed to the new "bright green" environmentalism. This can be demonstrated by his inclusion as the "keynote" piece in the first Dark Mountain Project http://dark-mountain.net/mountaineers/john-michael-greer/

This "Dark Mountain Project" was the primary contribution of the certainly less notable Paul Kingsnorth, who has a wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kingsnorth

This search will verify a long list of environmental and peak oil groups where he has recently been the keynote speaker: https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Michael+Greer+keynote&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Clearly, quite a broad audience of people consider him noteworthy enough to set the agenda for their conferences and festivals, and his celebrity within these communities is considered good publicity!

The reason for this notability is that he is the originator and foremost proponent of a "long decline" theory in opposition to the "crash" scenarios proposed by Kunstler. Mr. Greer's contribution has been so profound that the "long decline" scenario has become the most common view and even Kunstler has changed his predictions considerably to follow Greer's. This theory has become one of the most sited underlying tenants of "deep ecology" influenced environmentalism as well.


 * (added later) Mr. Greer has been a frequent guest in many Peak Oil blogs, books, etc, including James Kunstler's Webcast. Indeed, Mr. Kunster wrote a book called "Too Much Magic" (a reference to Mr. Greer's position as Arch Druid) which was instigated by Mr. Greer's theories. http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer

It seems quite impossible to assert that Mr. Greer is not "noteworthy" within this field when he is a perennial keynote speaker and even has books written about him by some of the other most noteworthy people in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, he is an extremely prolific author of more than 30 published books, some of which are best-sellers within their genres: http://www.amazon.com/John-Michael-Greer/e/B001IOFELW

In terms of his contribution to occultism, he has authored some of the best selling and most influential recent books on the topic, including the New Encyclopedia of the Occult. In addition, he is the appointed head of a large initiate religious order with a history that goes back a century. http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html

This is not, as was suggested, a self-appointed, "meaningless," or "made up" role.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will promptly return this page. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. In terms of Wikipedia, "notability" means basically only one thing: have reliable independent sources written anything about him? See WP:GNG. We do not normally consider other criteria, such as somebody's contributions to some field of study. The deletion was decided by consensus at Articles for deletion/John Michael Greer. If you want this result overturned, the best way to go about it is to produce references to reliable independent sources about Greer that weren't already mentioned in the discussion.  Sandstein   16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I could pretty easily find many more citations and references, but would this be a start? (Note, I tried to avoid the citations such as by library associations, which were included in the discussion)

John Michael Greer is an American author, blogger and speaker, most notably on the topics of Peak Oil, Resource Depletion, and Occult spiritual practice. Mr. Greer has been a contributing author throughout the Peak Oil Community, including The Oil Drum (http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/john_michael_greer) zero hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-11/guest-post-john-michael-greer-if-four-horsemen-arrive-offer-beer) and resilience.org.

Mr. Greer's works are frequently cited, recommended and discussed by peak oil experts, organizations, and publications, such as the Transition Towns (network) (http://transitionvoice.com/2011/11/transition-plans-meetings-a-waste-of-time-says-greer/) and James Howard Kunstler (http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer)

He has become influential lecturer, delivering keynote addresses for organizations including the Bioneers (http://bioneerschicago.org/category/2013-saturday/) and the Greensong Festival. (http://www.greensongfestival.org/keynote.html)

His recent books include the wealth of nature reviews: 1. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/adam-smith-got-it-way-way-wrong/ 2. http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ 3. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-12-07/review-wealth-nature-john-michael-greer 4. http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/reviews/wealth-nature

and the Blood of the Earth reviews: 1. http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2014_01.php#020489 2. http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/05/04/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth/ 3. http://www.rootsimple.com/2012/10/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth-an-essay-on-magic-and-peak-oil/

In 2003, Mr. Greer was elected the 7th head of the Ancient Order of Druids, the AODA http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html He has published many books on the occult. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * At a glance, many or most of these sources don't qualify under our rules because they are not substantial coverage of (rather than by) Greer, or are self-published sources without professional editorial oversight, such as blogs. Are there any among these sources that meet the criteria mentioned in WP:GNG? You really do need to read these rules I link to, especially WP:GNG, because most of the editors interested in deletion discussions, including me to be honest, only care about that.  Sandstein   20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe all or most of these citations are appropriate for the claims they support. I have read and used the guidelines in providing you sources.

I would assume that Greer would fall under the category of "creative professionals," and that references showing that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" would suffice. Greer meets the criteria in a ROBUST way. I can and have provided many references, including those with editorial oversight. I specifically selected sources that would meet the criteria, including "significant" sources with wikipedia pages themselves. An example given of an appropriate source is that of Slashdot. In no way is Slashdot substantively different as a source than The Oil Drum. Greer is frequently mentioned in print media and in books that have Wikipedia pages, but I thought it easier to provide easily verifiable online sources. In addition, Greer meets the criteria as the author of books which are widely discussed. I provided references for that, but I could provide HUNDREDS more.

Truly, I'm a professional in this field. Greer is discussed by 3rd parties ALL THE TIME. It would be very unusual to hear a discussion of Post Industrial Future within this community and NOT hear Greer referenced or quoted. Really, omitting Greer in such a discussion would be cause to question credibility. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Out of context, would you like some 3rd party references to Greer? There are several above, but I could provide more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought I'd add another discussion of Greer's work from the publication of the Post Carbon Institute http://dev.energybulletin.net/50751 Again, not a personal blog, has an editorial board, is a "notable" organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And here by Skyscript, founded by Deborah Houlding http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_geomancy.html97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And another 3rd party discussion of his work in Patheos http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2012/07/guest-post-the-blood-of-the-earth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And more, frequently these citations actually point out how famous and influential Greer is in Peak Oil circles. "Famous for his Archdruid Report, John Michael Greer is one of the most clear-sighted of authors who are grappling with the multiple crises..." http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ Again, Earthtimes is not a personal blog, but an online magazine. And here Transition Voice, another online magazine assumes that its readers would be familiar with Greer. http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ And here at Transition US: http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ 97.83.26.161 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(note, corrected some links including the Skyscript link.) 97.83.26.161 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed in Plenty: http://www.plentymag.com/magazine/reviews_green_media.php?page=2 Popular Anthropology Magazine: http://popanthro.org/ojs/index.php/popanthro/article/view/32 And here a response to Greer's ideas by Oil Drum founder Sharon Astyk: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-02-11/pick-your-hat-response-john-michael-greer 97.83.26.161 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * These sources are difficult to evaluate for me; there is a whiff of fringeness or unreliability to many of them. What we normally look for are clearly reliable sources like major mainstream media outlets or peer-reviewed journals or textbooks from respected publishers. That's not to say that your sources are necessarily inadequate, but they are not compelling enough for me to overturn the deletion discussion. You'd need to find a consensus of editors to determine that this coverage is sufficient as the basis of an article. You can attempt to do so by asking for a review of the deletion at WP:DRV and submitting the most compelling of your new-found sources to the discussion.   Sandstein   05:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I think I will leave it to your judgement (or to someone with more time to devote to Wikipedia.) I actually don't disagree that the sources are "fringy." However, the sources I chose ARE the leading sources, organizations, and experts on Peak Oil as cited in Wikipedia's Peak Oil article, and as I have demonstrated, Greer is a constant topic of discussion among those leading sources, organizations, and experts. This is not exactly an "academic" field of study with peer-reviewed journals. Nor are the subtleties of Peak Oil theory the topic of mainstream media attention. And when Greer is mentioned in mainstream media outlets, it is by less-than-reliable sources, like Glen Beck: http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/12/glenn-live-like-people-determined-to-be-free/ It could even be that the whole topic of Peak Oil is too fringy to merit a Wikipedia page, but Greer's contributions have fundamentally changed the discussions within that community. As the links above show, it is increasingly becoming the case that one can no longer have an in-depth discussion of Peak Oil--both as an environmental topic and as a social phenomenon--without mentioning Greer.

Anyway, this has given me insight into how much work goes into maintaining Wikipedia. Sincerely, thanks for doing it. 97.83.26.161 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal of enforcement action (January 2014)
The appeal of your enforcement action has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&direction=prev&oldid=592220529#Amendment_request:_Climate_change declined]. The comments made by the arbitrators may be useful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
You have been mentioned at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cambalachero (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the message by Lecen your complaint is about seems, in part, to be a complaint about me, I'm not taking any action in this case.  Sandstein   21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. Still, as I have mentioned you in the enforcement case, I thought that you should have known about it anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments about you
Greetings Sandstein, I'm sure you don't care about what I have to say and I am sure you think I hate you. I don't and I wanted to clarify that. I do think you are too heavy fisted when it comes to AE and sanctions. In a lot of the cases you are, IMO, much to fast to jump to exteremes and particularly lengthy blocks or bans. Wikipedia admins need to be fair and unfortunately I don't think you, with your block them and foget them mentality is healthy for the project. So although I have mentioned your name several times in discussions I wanted you to know that I don't think you are a bad person, I just think you are too extreme in your use of the block button and that sort of behavior isn't beneficial to the project or to the reputations of the admin group as a whole. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, although in general broad claims are taken much less seriously than complaints about specific actions backed up with evidence. If anybody disagrees with administrative actions I've taken, there are well-established venues for independent review and appeal of them. If I may ask, what is it that you are actually here for? You don't seem to have contributed to any articles since September.  Sandstein   17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not any particular action you have taken (although I could name several I disagreed with) but the general notion you seem to have that you are never wrong and that you favor extreme action for even minor infractions of policy. Your "broad discretion" is frequently far too reaching than should be considered reasonable. I am also disappointed that no one seems to care, seemingly because you generally stay close to Arbcom and AE where people generally don't care about and have the attitude of guilt. Since you asked why I keep editing, I really don't know, in general I am fed up with Wikipedia and the hypocrisy. I may edit again someday but there are too many problem and too few people willing to find solutions too them. There are even less who are willing to accept there is a problem. The disgraceful release of Visual Editor is a factor and the WMF's lack of respect for the community insisting we clean up their mess; I'm tired of being told I can't be trusted; I'm tired of the us and them mentality between admins and editors; I'm tired of the general lack of trust of editors and I find it shameful how IP's and new users are treated; we have too many useless templates and too much policy and rules; I'm tired of being told by admins who abusively use the block button that I can't be trusted with the block button knowing that I will almost never use it, because I think blocks should only be used in rare situations and even then only for limited duration; I'm tired of certain Wikiprojects and editors/admins being allowed article ownership over their articles of interest. The list goes on. These are just some of the reasons I don't edit much anymore. I don't even bother to revert vandalism anymore. There are 2 pages on my watchlist that have had vandalism since July and August respectively that haven't been fixed. I want to see how long it takes for someone else to catch it since my efforts aren't trusted or appreciated. It took months for someone to fix the RFA stats link that was still going to the toolserver and there are still a lot of other things linking there that haven't been fixed yet. To be honest, I expect for someone to block me at some point or for someone to send me to Arbcom. That would have been a massive insult in the past but now, with this environment, I expect it. This community doesn't want to change things, they want yes men and women who will go along and get along...which, much to my shame I did for a long time. I partially blame myself for allowing Wikipedia to devolve into the sorry state in which it now can be found. I should have spoken up sooner. Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't really say that I've understood all of this, but in cases of "wiki-burnout" such as the one you seem to describe, my advice is to stop caring about the social aspects of Wikipedia for a while and focus on improving articles that interest you. That's what we are all here for, after all.  Sandstein   18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually its not Wiki burnout per sey and I am not going to edit articles until some of those social aspects change. Its no fun to edit an article just to have some admin revert your change because they "own" the article. Just try making a change to Charles Lindburgh and see how long it lasts. Try adding an infobox to an article under WP Novels or editing an article "owned" by US Roads. This project is losing editors faster than we can gain them because the social aspects make it not enjoyable, we don't have enough qualified people with the admin tools to do the job and we keep losing more. Some of those that are still here shouldn't be. Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, your advice to Kumioko is good ... for wikipedia of 2009. But there have been a few sea-changes in the past year or so, wherein the social aspects have begun to sap the WP:-D from the editing aspects, unless one concentrates on extremely out-of-the-way content ( recommends articles about specific named glaciers in nature preserves as particularly soothing).  If you want specific examples, see the greenbox here, which summarizes an editor who lasted 12 edits and 10 hours after first contact, WT:WER, or see the December 26/27/28th portions of an editor who lasted 9 edits and 46 hours after first contact.
 * You weren't involved in either of these (and unlike Kumioko I've never seen you goof &mdash woo!), plus I only came into these two situations after the fact. But the wikipedia social-system has qualitatively changed, recently, in the effects if not the intent; I believe that is part of Kumioko's complaint, albeit not all of it (they are also concerned about RfA and such).  The intersection of increasing readership spawning increasing COI-pressures, along with the decreasing editor-count spawning busy-busy WP:NINJA-revert-by-default wikiCulture, have methinks collided.  Nobody is doing anything *wrong* in these two concrete examples, although a couple mistakes were made, they were correctable, and well within the wikiCulture norms.  But in my book, neither of these things should have happened (the way they did), if we ever want to stop bleeding personnel... but similar things happen every day, all the time.  Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be true, but it is a fact of life that the complexity of social systems tends to grow with time, including Wikipedia. All we can and should expect from individual editors is (a) work to improve articles, (b) observe the community's policies and guidelines, and (c) work collegially with others. If a high enough proportion of editors do so, a relatively productive working environment should (re-)emerge.  Sandstein   09:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli
I was wondering if he was still under a ban from everything related to Armenia and Georgia, because he has been editing articles on Georgia. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  00:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The ban concerns only material that is related to both Armenia and Georgia.  Sandstein   09:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meaning related to both Armenia and Georgia at the same time? -- Ե  րևանցի  talk  00:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so.  Sandstein   15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion Report
You blocked User:NinaGreen for edits in violation of her topic ban on the Shakespearean authorship question. (I haven't reviewed the details of what she edited, but the Groatsworth is only significant in modern times because of its reference to Shakespeare.) An IP address has posted to WP:ANI complaining about the block. I have filed a sock-puppet investigation request. Although editing logged out is often simply a mistake, editing logged out when blocked is more typically a form of block evasion. I don't know if you are interested or would prefer to let other admins look into the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, she has been discussing her issues with the complexity and unfairness of Discretionary sanctions, but she wasn't topic-banned by Arbitration Enforcement under the discretionary sanctions, but in the original decision by the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Robert, those ip edits were made before Nina was blocked, and also without any pretense of being another person. She often forgets to log in. I'd post on the SPI, but I'm on a handheld device and it's killing me. Bishonen &#124; talk 02:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Robert McClenon, because you don't link to the IP address, the SPI, or the ANI discussion, I can't follow up your report, but if what Bishonen writes is true, I don't see any need for admin action.  Sandstein   15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan article
Sandstein, can I edit sport section of Azerbaijan article? Just want to clarify with you as you put ban on me shown in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBAA2 Just to be clear, I just want to add few little details, that's not related to political problems between Azerbaijan and Armenia.--NovaSkola (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the log, "the topic ban is modified to exclude any edit that is about sports, provided that it does not relate in any way to political or historical disputes concerning Armenia or Azerbaijan". So, yes, you may edit Azerbaijan, provided that you don't add anything that is not about sports, or anything related to political disputes.  Sandstein   15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, for your response.--NovaSkola (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)