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

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)[reply]

The ban concerns only material that is related to both Armenia and Georgia. Sandstein 09:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning related to both Armenia and Georgia at the same time? --Երևանցի ^talk 00:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. Sandstein 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks a lot, for your response.--NovaSkola (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.48.222 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post the specific links to coverage that meets WP:GNG here? I'm not keen on Facebook or having to click through zillions of links of perhaps questionable usefulness. Sandstein 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/la/2014/01/28/heart-panamanian-jungle-startup-village-grows/ CNN en Espanol- http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/spanish/2014/01/11/cnnee-aventurero-reportero-ted-adventure.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fkaluyalainternships.com%2F Fusion: http://fusion.net/american_dream/story/young-people-building-worlds-sustainable-community-panama-324448 Mission.tv: http://mission.tv/features/kalu-yala-a-sustainable-jungle-settlement-for-entrepreneurs.html Atlanta Business Chronicle: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0yclteq0wdwlcdf/Atlanta%20Business%20Chronicle%20Kalu%20Yala%20Article.pdf ULoop: http://osu.uloop.com/news/view.php/104693/a-few-months-in-panama-an-overview-of-the-kalu-yala-entrepreneurial-internship-program Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-slavin/the-world-of-kalu-yala_b_1415934.html Under30Ceo: http://under30ceo.com/town-2-0-leader-2-0-lessons-entrepreneurship-jimmy-stice/ FSView: http://www.fsunews.com/article/20130328/FSVIEW0101/130327037/Student-works-sustain-agriculture-Panama Cavalier Daily: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/09/a-summer-off-the-grid UGAzine: http://georgiaugazine.com/changing-the-world-with-kalu-yala-2/ The Collegian: http://thecollegianur.com/2013/09/22/summer-aboad-in-the-kalu-yala-valley/36843/ Tiger News: http://thetigernews.com/news.php?aid=8761&sid=1 The Silhouette: http://www.thesil.ca/insideout-embracing-both-fear-and-failure-at-kalu-yala?fb_action_ids=10153332829755370&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A310183902455569%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map The Daily Reveille: http://www.lsureveille.com/news/student-learns-about-sustainability-in-panama-jungle/article_11fcff3c-36c2-11e3-9519-001a4bcf6878.html The State Press: http://www.statepress.com/2013/09/11/student-internship-at-sustainable-community-provides-wealth-of-opportunity/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.48.222 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I am repoening the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalu Yala, and you can participate there. Sandstein 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Datacoin

Can you please userfy Datacoin? User Dialectric said that there's no guideline for keeping drafts, but as I argued WP:PRESERVE should be applied. Diego (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now at User:Diego Moya/Datacoin. Sandstein 10:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the restoration because you moved the content to Draft:Datacoin with the rationale "Per WP:PRESERVE. This belongs to the community, not me." The purpose of the draft namespace is to store new article drafts, not to store material that the community has decided should be deleted. Sandstein 10:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the purpose of draft space is for new drafts only? There's no hard guideline on how to handle the draft space - article policies certainly don't apply to it, or it couldn't contain unverified content.

This is certainly too much a grey area for a speedy deletion - for content that has not been recreated but WP:REFUNDed. The community consensus has not been altered, Datacoin is still a redlink, which is what was decided at the AfD. You haven't addressed the ongoing discussion that was supported by two editors, so your decision to close is in no way a clear indication that the content should be hidden from view - no one has argued for that besides you and Dialectric, and you didn't participate in the discussion; if you had such a strong opinion about the possibility of a move to draft, you should have added it instead of closing it. Diego (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page interloper wandering by...I'd never heard of this Draft: space until now, and what I see at WP:DRAFTS at the moment is an unimpressive mess that the creator(s) didn't plan out very well, e.g. how to mesh with AfC and the Incubator before creating anew project space. I would vigorously oppose a side-stepping of the AfD process by allowing deleted content to be Draft-spaced. That's like Redemption Island replacing being voted off the island, which I never liked. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As he has discussed a bit with me on my talk page, Diego is pushing a position that almost all afd deleted articles should instead go to draft, which I see as a pretty radical position, running counter to years of Afd precedent. For unclear reasons, he appears to be using the Datacoin and V-play as test cases for implementing this idea.Dialectric (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Moya: Deletion generally means "remove the content from Wikipedia". All proposals to introduce some sort of soft deletion by moving the deleted text elsewhere have so far been rejected by the community. Userfication is sometimes used because a particular editor wants to work on the article such that it can be restored. But just undeleting it and dumping it in the draft namespace in the hope that somebody comes along and improves it (how would they even find it?) would defeat the purpose of deletion, which is to remove content that we as a project (currently) don't want. Sorry, but you can't use the draft namespace as an end-run around deletion policy. Sandstein 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Deletion policy says, "The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit." Also, the tone of your comments such as with the word "dumping" do not show impartiality. Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication or incubation is a possible outcome of AfD, but here consensus was to delete rather than to incubate the content. Sandstein 09:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The record at [1] shows, "2014-01-30T10:45:58 Sandstein (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Datacoin (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: undoing restoration - the draft namespace is for new article drafts, not for bypassing a deletion decision.)". G4 is not the same as an editorial consensus of the editors in draftspace to remove an article. An issue with the AfD is that the closer did not explain the closing. The fact that the closer was then willing to Userfy to the editor who argued that there was no material that needed to be hidden from view, implies that the closer did not think the WP:PROMO arguments compelling. Nonetheless, I think the WP:PROMO concern remains even if not sustained, and I know from the AfD that the article was created by a spa. What I request is that the references and categories from the article be posted and preserved at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datacoin. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work, because we don't retain talk pages without an associated main page. I can however dump the material in your user space. Sandstein 09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datacoin is the talk page of the AfD, which is commonly accessible. I've never known of an AfD talk page being deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I somehow misread the link as the talk page of the deleted article. Anyway, the article had no references, and only one category, Category:Cryptocurrencies. I leave it up to you what you want to do with this. Sandstein 07:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I will so notate the AfD talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most respectful question

I am concerned that you did this with the comment "rm personal attacks etc" when I provided you specific cites to the debates in question, which, in their totality, constituted my evidence of bullying and personal attacks in an attempt to clarify the comment you "warned" me about. I have no wish to abuse any forum, but your comments concern me, as first you warn me for casting aspersions without evidence, then you remove my evidence when I provide it. I could of course provide a longer list of diffs, but I do not want to be viewed by you as abusing the forum or this talk page, so if you could kindly clarify what would be required for you to consider retracting your "warning" on the pseudoscience page, I would be most graciously interested in seeing a way to clear my good name; what is the most appropriate way and place for me to present this evidence? Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen and others have explained to you on your talk page that you are mistaken. The warning is appropriate and will not be retracted. You should in the future stay out of AE threads that don't concern you directly, and not make any accusations of misconduct towards others except in the appropriate forum and with convincing evidence in the form of diffs. What evidence you submitted was not suited to prove misconduct. Sandstein 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Stay out of AE thread that don't concern you?" Pardon me, but doesn't AE seek "uninvolved" people to comment and offer a neutral view? As far as my comments about Wolfie, what concerns me is that he didn't get the same treatment when he started making personal attacks on Olive. Had you simply removed his comments as well as mine (including his attacks on me as well as on Olive) and warned him about personalizing a thread, I could at least give you a nod for consistency, but as it sits, I have to say that I question your objectivity and neutrality; it is very clear to me that some animals are more equal than others. It is a bit absurd that this arose over what was clearly a fringe editor; we all agreed on that point. But I do think your harsh tone and that of Wolfie is not helpful to dealing with these people, it actually tends to confirm their own beliefs that they are the true prophets of god or whatever, persecuted by all. Much better to just gently ease them out the back and use a lot of WP:IGNORE on their drama and appropriate ANI for any actual behaviors, such as edit-warring. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AE doesn't seek views, or at least I tend to ignore statements that merely express an opinion. That's because AE doesn't work by consensus. What AE does seek is actionable evidence in the form of dated and explained diffs. Everything else is merely noise. I am advising you not to interfere in AE discussions because so far you have contributed nothing useful to them, and instead you have wasted a lot of time of others and made personal attacks that distracted from the topic at hand.

You use this page to repeat your assertions that one editor attacked another, but again you do not provide evidence in the form of diffs. I care nothing for links to long discussion threads. If you want to provide evidence of misconduct, you must link to specific diffs and explain why they are misconduct, and you must do so at the same time as you make any allegations of misconduct, not later. If you continue in this vein, I will make you subject to an interaction ban or other restriction. This is my final communication in this matter. Sandstein 22:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking by user Zimmarod

Hello, I'm topic banned to edit anything related to Azerbaijan and Armenia, but could u please look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan&diff=prev&oldid=593135323

as User:Zimmarod completely cleared well referenced sources about Guba Mass Grave, especially when both sites are properly working and it includes enough information about the topic. Could u please take action.

I also would like to ask, when I can appeal the ban as I really would like to edit topics about culture. Moreover, my last 3 months been trouble free. --NovaSkola (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message violates your topic ban, and I'll block you in enforcement of the ban as soon as I get around to it. Any non-banned editor can request enforcement via WP:AE. You may appeal a ban at any time. Sandstein 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]