User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

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 (MONGO 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#My_experience_and_why_I_am_not_going_to_edit_Wikipedia, or see the December 26/27/28th portions of an editor who lasted 9 edits and 46 hours after first contact.[1]

  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)

Arbitration enforcement

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lecen 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)

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. --Երևանցի ^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? --Երևանցի ^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 | 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#Sports, 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)

Kalu Yala

Hi there! I jus saw that you confirmed the deletion of the Kalu Yala page. I think this was a mistake as they just hosted TEDx Adventure: The Jungle- the first TEDx Adventure. This has been on CNN en Espanol, mission.tv and The Next Web (links for these are most easily found together on their Facebook page: ww.facebook.com/kaluyala). They will be hosting several entrepreneur gatherings in 2015 which should be announced in the next 6 months. (184.77.48.222 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalu_Yala

Sorry to disappoint you, but nothing of this establishes Kalu Yala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as notable in the way we use this term on Wikipedia. Basically, we need substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. See WP:N for more about this.  Sandstein  21:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey sorry I still don't understand- there have been articles by multiple reputable sources (most of which even have their own Wiki page). I pointed to the Kalu Yala Facebook page because it has all the articles together- as does the Kalu Yala Internships website (www.kaluyalainternships.com (minus the article that went up on The Next Web today. Or the article that was just posted on Gawker). This included Atlanta Business Chronicle, Fusion, CNN en Espanol, Mission.tv, ULoopThe Huffington Port, Under30CEO, and multiple college newspapers. How are these not covering the requirements of 1)significant coverage 2) Reliable 3)Multiple sources 4) Independent of the subject 5) Presumed that since it is in multiple sources it should be able to be a stand alone article. Again, I'm really sorry- obviously I'm new to this! All help will be greatly appreciated! Thank you!