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

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To you as well! Sandstein 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pbl1998 block

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

There is at any rate too much coordination of edits going on, via meat- or sockpuppets, and the edits of Pbl1998 are of so low a quality, that I have no compelling reason to draw the checkusers' confirmation of identity into question. Sandstein 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry, WP:TLDR. PBL1998 needs to convince the checkusers in order to be unblocked. Any problems with Wokingrocks/Willrocks should be addressed via WP:DR. Sandstein 11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok short version. 1. Socks are supposed to be judged on behaviour not just checkuser. Having watched the pair of them edit on multiple articles for over a month its clear they are seperate people. What checkuser is seeing is two people at the same school 2. The suggestion they might be meat puppets could be argued, but the penalty for that is not an indef block. 3. Neither is an indef block a reasonable sanction for poor quality editing by a new user.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to convince the blocking checkuser about that, not me. I will not override their decision in this case. Checkusers do take behavior into account, not only technical evidence. Sandstein 15:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought checkuser was a process not a user, by blocking checkuser do you mean the admin who put on the block in the first place? Thanks,--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Checkuser is a tool, but also shorthand to describe the users who have access to it. The checkusers who confirmed the account identity are Jpgordon and MuZemike; the blocking admin was HelloAnnyong. It is they who you need to convince. Sandstein 15:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting. Sounds to me like unblocking is probably the right move, then. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same opinion here. If there isn't convincing evidence that they are the same person, they should be unblocked IMO. Hey Mid (contribs) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without a checkuser positive this does seem like a bunch of kids in a school computer lab. Wokingrocks (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock- or meatpuppet of one of them, though, and should remain blocked. Sandstein 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed wholly on Wokingrocks. And I've unblocked Pbl1998. Thanks again for helping me with this case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lingua Franca Nova

Sandstein

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

Will the item be deleted or not?

Thank you

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

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

Thank you

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

Nemrud

Dear Sandstein,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Kind regards,

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

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

Possible copyright violation?

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

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

Opinion

Hi Sandstein. Could you please take a minute and see if these edits constitute violation of 3RR: [1] (continuation of his edit-warring from the previous day), [2], [3], [4], [5] (his contributions on history page of the article. The user Xebulon (talk · contribs) has been warned numerous times against edit-warring and 3RR by me, and two other uninvolved users (Please see his talk page). Tuscumbia (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply, but such reports are better made to WP:AN3 where admins will process them faster. It is not immediately clear from your message that this is a 3RR violation because the diffs of the edits that are reverted are not provided. Sandstein 06:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Sandstein. You're overwhelmed with many requests anyway. OK, will take a look at AN3. Thanks for the response. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Binksternet

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

File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg

Hey. Just a heads-up, I'll probably be filing a deletion discussion about this image in the next few days. While I disagree with having a separate article on the guy (though I see the other side's argument given the other cruft that exists around here), I really disagree with the idea that this person is iconic/historic/notable enough to warrant a break in the non-free image use policies. Don't get me wrong, I think the entire policy regarding images of living people is asinine, but if it's going to apply to nearly any biography of a living person, this person shouldn't be an exception. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not a fan of using mugshots for people not (yet) convicted of a crime, so be aware that BLP will be brought up in such a discussion. It can wait on MZMcBride's nomination, though. In the meantime, you have my compliments on a very well-stated fair-use rationale. Far too many editors, even especially those who know the policy, just write "low resolution" and leave it at that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, MZMcBride. How do you believe the image violates the non-free image use policies? Sandstein 06:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, do you mean WP:MUG, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light"? This does not apply here, as the mug shot is very much in context with respect to the subject. The crime he's been charged with is the basis for his notability. Sandstein 06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]